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

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 12:40 am
    Vera, another one for you, before I retire for the moment.

    I will really try not to double-post this time (I don't exactly know why that happened twice before).

    With regard to the bombing of Belgrade, and your quite rightly infuriated presence there, and your comments on what has become known as 9/11, I wonder if you've seen this moving photo-collage from the Emperor's Clothes web-site:-

    http://emperors-clothes.com/1/rem.htm ?

    Pardon me if this is old stuff to you.

    I was, in a way, relieved that the 9/11 "pilots" were not rightfully disgruntled Serbs, sorry YUGOSLAVS!, as I would then have found it tortuously difficult to have been unreservedly critical of those actions.

    D. R.
    USA

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 4:03 am
    Vera go to Freerepublic.com and search under 'milosevic' for the article --it is there plus many more C/W informed and uninformed comment

    J R
    norway

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 4:17 am
    Vera here is your http://www.antiwar.com/rep/laughland14.htmllink

    J R
    norway

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 9:25 am
    Vera, please visit following site, TFF@transnational.org information is based on reputable research. If you have problem please contact me. Carla

    Carla Berg
    Austria

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 12:00 pm

    A couple of yeras I wrote:

    The merry goes around: give me Slobo, give me democracy, I give you terrorist, give me Telecom, I give you kiss, blow up bus, you do not give Telecom, Bank, I give terrorist, I give peace, give me, give me, give me . . Carla met Colin in the same place in Brussels, democracy, give me more, I blow up bus.

    We are the 19 boys and girls of freedom and democracy, we display peace signs on our chests, we love Telecom, Turkish Telecom, Serbia Telecom, we love money market , we like peace, we give you terrorist, boooom, booom, booom. . .

    Bitch is gone Pig is on, we like Telecom, we like peace, we give you terrorist....

    We are the 19 boys and girls of freedom democracy and free market, we like minorities, we dislike unity, we like diversity, we like borders, we like turbans, or kepis, where to hang the cellular phone, we like big toys like Telecoms.

    We don't like your corruption we like ours, we like transparency, we see where the little dollar is when all is transparent, we like you to be happy too, we like to share, we like what is mine and what is yours too, ten folds for the asking, we like you . . .

    You don't like us? The 19 boys and girls of freedom, democracy and free market . . .then we give you terrorist!

    We like you so much, we will like to open an office in the White City, a little garrison next to a nice cafe, like in the good old days when aromatic Turkish coffee made our days, we could look at the girls wearing democratic dresses, we will protect you from terrorist, we do it for the love of freedom and peace, not for money, dirty word, we are the holy boys and girls of democracy and freedom, we like toys, and Telecoms, give us your phone, we give you love and peace, all in English or Danish if you really want to be European, we love you so much, we will die for you protecting you from terrorist. . . .

    Banking or spanking is something that we chose in our love for freedom and democracy, Albanians terrorists in Macedonia are our friends, they are not terrorist, they are expressing our values loud and clear, give them freedom, Telecom, freedom and democracy no constitutional state, but the nicest of all states; civic society were individual rights can be charged on the internet, or at the American express.

    We are the holy boys and girls of freedom and democracy, we like a little dollar, because... you know why, you know why, you know why!

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 1:55 pm
    Gog Well that convinces me, you're not a poet or writer. In the english it doesn't makes sense. By the way, didn't the 'prosecution' appeal, and lose. We have one case covering 3 areas, not as you say separate cases. I would like a judgement on Kosovo before the other 2 are started. Save a lot of time and aggravation as they may be moot.

    Did anyone catch Holbrook on Fox today. In a nut shell he's proposing the same aggression strategy on Iraq as we used on Yugoslavia. Sorta, just do it.

    Is it a coincidence that Holbrook, unseen recently, to now appear on a national news program, when he's also being sought by the 'tribunal'.

    Joe P
    USA

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 2:47 pm

    Sorry my English is dismal. It makes the case English should not be the universal language, the lingua franca, at least to me.

    The prosecution asked for a single trial, the Chamber, the Trio, ruled three separates trials, Carla appealed and won. So, now even in the un-likely but well deserved event the Trio dismisses the Kosovo part, Mr. Milosevic will have go on until the prosecution rests its complete case.

    For a telling insight of what Rick Holbrooke is doing now days read THIS

    The NYT said years ago, his mother used to send him to Sunday Quaker school.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 4:43 pm
    It is really refreshing to read that so many people actually do use their heads. It would be even more refreshing to start getting 'News' from organizations purported to dispense 'News'. If enough people were to complain to the 'source', it might make a difference. ??????? I watch, only, Fox News, and am in the midst of a campaign to get them to report the real truth out of the Hague. ie., The REAL story presented by Rade Markovic for starters. If you wish to contact them: foxfeedback@foxnews.com You have to register with them to do so, but then you can E-Mail them as often as you like. I sent them the following link, http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/rade.htm after asking them "to report THIS and let us decide". (Small play on their motto.) I would also like to know when the Transcripts will be up for the 26th? Never? Thanks for all the many links some of you have provided on here. The worst thing is, understanding how the decent people of Germany felt prior to WWII. They couldn't do anything either. This isn't just about what we are doing to an innocent man. This is about what we are doing to ourselves. I don't remember the saying exactly...something like, he who doesn't learn from the mistakes of history is doomed to repeat them. Maybe we should all go back and take another look at Ancient Rome or whatever. So my friends say, "Don't be silly. America is too powerful to fall. So thought Ancient Romans.....Right up thru 20th Century Germans.

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR/USA

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 6:36 pm
    Yes Dennis as you noticed it was an in-joke between Oto and me. However before anyone else is tempted to believe that I seriously claim to have such an "amazing gift", a la Rowland, I had better explain that the moderator or system managed to swap,after a brief period, the order of the two posts above this claim.

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 6:45 pm

    Joe P

    BLOCKQUOTE>Gog Well that convinces me, you're not a poet or writer. In the english it doesn't makes sense.

    • I know my English is bad but yours I wonder if it meant, " you're not a poet nor(a) writer



    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 8:05 pm
    Sunday September 01, 2002 at 6:36 pm

    ...

    Peter Taylor Herts/UK

    ;-)

    BTW, I find your association of Bush's poodle Blair with anything vaguely socialist more than bizarre.

    Gogol, I understood the import of your poem perfectly well. Take no notice; just because someone may have gone to British Public (ie: Private!) school, Oxbridge, or one of the US Ivy League establishments is no guarantee of their abilities of comprehension; or probably more likely their willingness to endeavour therewith on material originating from someone who's first language may not be English.

    You should be wary of the FreeRepublic web-site cited above. They are predominantly right-wing Republican Party nutters, the only reason that they seem sympathetic to the Yugoslav cause is entirely on the basis of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They hate Clinton, thereby anything Clinton did is wrong.

    I fully believe had the Republicans held the power in the lead up to the KosovO disaster, then Terrorist-In-Chief Joe DioGuardi and his Albanian American League, would have been buttering up to and bribing Republican Congressmen, and a Republican President, in an effort to get the USAF rented out as the KLA's very own airforce. Moreover, in all probability, they would have been JUST AS SUCCESSFUL.

    And those nutters at FreeRepublic would have been the first to climb onto the "Bomb Serb babies on their potties" band-wagon.

    The US political (lobbying) system is so institutionalisedly corrupt, that hardly anyone here recognises it as such any more. US domestic, and to the woe of the rest of the world, US foreign, policy, is for sale to the highest bidders.

    Politics, especially US politics, makes strange bedfellows indeed.

    Here's the graphic from the opening page of the terrorist supporting Albanian-American League:-

    http://www.aacl.com/graphics/aacl.gif

    If this doesn't make absolutely clear the intentions of most Albanians both in the region, and in the wider diaspora, then nothing will.

    Watch out Southern Montenegro and Northern Greece!!! As we know Macedonia and Southern Serbia "proper" have/are already felt/feeling the brunt of this expansionism.

    The world and the truth's turned upside-down! The reality of the push for a Greater Albania, and Balkan Albanian (& American Albanian) agression being replaced by the flashing fictions of a "Greater Serbia" and Serbian "aggression" in what passes for mainstream media in the West. No doubt now also in Serbia too, now that your media seem to have been so thoroughly "Westernised" (Sorosised!).

    You have the sincere apologies of at least this one Westerner, for the outrageous criminal activities of leaders I had nothing to do with promoting; nor shamefully not much to do with preventing.

    Dennis Revell
    USA

  • Sunday September 01, 2002 at 10:51 pm
    Actually, I did't get the point of the 'poem' but I'll go back and give it another shot. I enjoyed reading all the posts on this thread especially those by the 'poet'. If I came over too strong, I apologize to all.

    I think of FreeRepublic as a conservative site which the Republicans no longer are. On FR I championed Pat Buchanan and on balance still do. Ann Coulter is also on the top of my list. If either were president back when, then there would be a Yugoslavia today sans Slovenia Croatia and Islamists. In the long term that still may happen. I don't see how the Holbrook brokered mismash in Bosnia/H can survive.

    Joe P
    USA

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 1:08 am
    Joe P:-

    One of my points that I did now make entirely clear is that there is no way "Conservatives" on FreeRepublic would ever be sympathetic to Milosevic's and the SPS's vaguely? socialistic ideas of universal health-care, universal and high-quality education, amongst others.

    All that is anathema to them.

    The fact remains, as far as I'm concerned, that their support for Yugoslavia was born entirely out of their slavering dog hatred for Clinton; just as they hated his and Hilary's moves towards a more universal and equitable health-care system; which ironically is something that Milosevic would have applauded.

    Don't mistake this as any support for Clinton, it's merely the situation as I see it. As far as I'm concerned, Clinton deserves, amongst others, to be locked up in the same cell as Madeleine Albright, and then the key melted down.

    I would say the same about the members of a Republican administration under the same circumstances. I believe the circumstances would have been the same, had a Republican Administration held sway at the relevant time, and been the recipients (some Republicans were anyway) of American-Albanian lobbying (ie:- bribing) efforts, resulting ultimately in the USAF becoming the de-facto KLA airforce.

    Hmmm. Sharing a cell with Madeleine Albright. The best punishment short of not exactly undeserved death-sentences I can come up with.

    ;-)

    Dennis Revell
    USA

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 1:37 am
    Joe P:-

    I may miss the mark here, but with relevance to the poem, think (may be?):-

    Think bus-load of Serb returnees to KosovO blown to bits ... under KFOR's watchful eye ... again ...

    Think of all the fake free-market, Soros "open-society" crap pushed down the throats of the Balkanised Balkans; resulting in, as the poem intimates, western style banking, and much spanking, as in KLA run child sex-slave brothels:-

    ... the KLA's version of "free enterprise" (not to mention the heroin).

    Think western telecoms corporations (largely Deutsche Telekom) now owning large swathes of the Balkan telecommunications infrastructure.

    Think western corporations now controlling the immensely rich Trepca mines in KosovO.

    Germany probably now owns more of the Balkans than they did in WW II.

    ... and like WW II, Germany was also instrumental in this evidently more successful, and disastrous, break-up of the former Yugoslavia.

    Dennis Revell
    USA

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 2:36 am
    A comment was requested on Ann Coulter's latest column. So here is mine (and mine only).

    Coulter seems to be putting forward a package deal, with the main elements being the fiasco of the Milosevic trial, the defense of Israel and the attack on Iraq. I have no problem with linking the first two elements together, but I have had to think long and hard about the third.

    I don't know much about Iraq, but I think I know the following. Iraq has been under severe economic sanctions for about ten years. These sanctions were blessed by the Security Council. These sanctions have cost the lives about a million innocent victims. The Gulf War took place during the administration of Bush Sr., but the sanctions regime was given a go-ahead by Madelaine Albright.

    So the lack of open war in Iraq has cost the lives of millions of civilians. And this has been blessed by the UN Security Council. Would an open attack on Iraq produce more casualties? I think not. That is why the Security Council resolution is quite beside the point. An invasion would at least have the chance of hitting some military targets, whereas the sanctions hit the civilians first and the military targets second. And once the government change succeeds, the killing would be over.

    How about the guilt of Saddam Hussein? Now that international law is reformulated in the garb of criminal law, wouldn't it be fair to say that he is at least guilty of attempt to produce WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and to use them? An attempt can be punished, and it is again beside the point if the conviction takes place inside the courtroom or politically.

    How about his involvement in al-Qaeda's activities? As has been pointed out, al-Qaeda is just the tip of the iceberg. The terrorism is a structural phenomenon. And what is the structural problem? The Muslim world has been allowed to cut itself from the Western world. So a government change would cure at least some of that.

    But why Iraq? Answer: why not? It has been said that Israel is the US foothold in the Middle East. Obviously that foothold isn't enough. Now it is creating even more problems that it was meant to solve. So you need another foothold. And so it goes. You could create a sort of inverted "domino effect", which has until now been the strategy of fundamental Islam.

    But wouldn't the Muslims get "angry" (to use the favourite expression), and would they be controllable? As the Bush administration has said, every conflict in the region can be contained. Nukes are not necessary. Pravda reported that the US might use a so-called E-bomb, which destroys the electronic infrastructure but saves the lives. Anyway, the "anger" of the Muslims is just another reason to hit Iraq. Why don't the Muslim countries say that the US is hitting a member of the UN? The protest is always voiced in the name of the Muslims. And so it was when Afghanistan was hit. So you see that the guilt of a Muslim country is quite irrelevant for the Muslims. For the Muslims, another Muslim cannot be punished by an infidel, no matter how great the guilt of the Muslim. So you see that the Islam fundamental ideals have reached even the governments of liberal countries (i.e. Egypt).

    Then Israel. On the connection between Iraq and the Palestinian uprising, see http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD41502 . On the connection between the EU and the Palestinian uprising, see http://jewishworldreview.com/0802/weinberg.html . So it is quite fair for Bush say that if you are not with us, you are against us. Whatever your opinion of Israel, the JWR article should shape your opinion of the EU.

    Bush is a dunce. But as the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard said, it is very hard to fool a dunce, whereas it is very hard to fool a crook. And here we have the "suspension of the ethical", of which even Kierkegaard couldn't have thought a better example. And this sure goes against the "slave morality" (or as some Muslims like to say, against the man-made rules).

    This is my comment. You have my vote. But would it be too much to make two requests? You know, many people see the Iraq invasion as another Yugoslavia. So I suggest that any connection between the invasion of Iraq and and the bombing of Yugoslavia is obliterated.

    This means that Tony Blair has to be kept out. Gladly, the British administration hit on the idea itself. (Did I mention that the BBC encounters mysterious technical disturbances, whenever it tries to broadcast the trial?) And this has undoubtedly made it easier for Ann Coulter to show the connection between the Clinton administration and the Milosevic trial.

    Second, the US must take up the defense of Milosevic. If it won't abolish the tribunal, it can intervene on behalf of Milosevic. This may not be a standard solution, but everything can be arranged by amending the statute and the rules. If this is too much to ask, the US government should set up a legal team (secret or not) for the defense of Milosevic. I say the government, not just the Bush administration, because the Statute was written by the Clinton administration, and the guy who wrote it must know how to crack it. The conclusions can then be "leaked" to the Internation Committee for the Slobodan Milosevic. This may not be kosher, but remember, the US has kept a very low official profile in the tribunal. How many judges are Americans? And whatever role the US had setting up the tribunal, can be made disappear. The idea of the tribunal was to rewrite history anyway.

    And now that Ann Coulter has demonstrated her ability to persuade, would she at least consider becoming Milosevic trial attorney?

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 3:21 am
    Jari,

    I have difficulty in seperating what you may intend as ironic, or tongue-in-cheek, in the above, from what you do not.

    No, I'm not American.

    ;-)

    You cite JWR and the very definitively SELECTIVE Memri web-sites; you mean the whole thing tongue-in-cheek, right?

    Kirgegard apart, there really are such things as dumb crooks!

    "International law re-formulated in the garb of criminal law"? - Well, I'm assuming that's disregarding the US's refusal to recognise the ICC, and poodle Blair's "special deals" therewith for "his" boys in Afghanistan?

    Hey, no offence. As said above, I'm more used to the less cerebral Guardian Talk boards.

    ;-)

    ... but it struck me that your post contained at least a hint that two wrongs might make a right ...

    And no, I didn't read Coulter's column, I can't stand her; but I would read it if someone has a link.

    Dennis Revell
    USA

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 4:03 am
    The link to Coulter's column is http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20020822.shtml . Let the reader decide what is irony and what is serious. Actually what is irony and what is not depends on the Republicans' next move. And don't they know that they need support! So why not use this delightful little bargaining position?

    Beside, the point is not separate irony from substance. What you do need to separate is the political campaigning and the trial. It is just as dubious to use the trial for political grandstanding for socialist causes as it was to set the tribunal up for political motives. That way you won't win, and what I am interested in is the victory of the accused. Go ahead with your socialist propaganda, if you are absolutely sure that you want Milosevic to lose. Don't hold your breath until the Americans and British decide to convict "their boys" of war crimes.

    It is a common criticism to accuse MEMRI and JWR of one-sidedness. That happens when you think in Western terms. When you have samples of Iraqi and Palestinian official statements, I think that is the whole truth, because there are no opinions in Iraq and Palestine except the official one. Are the MEMRI and JWR suddenly the only one-sided sources because they are opposite to what you think?

    You can be certain that I have problems with what I said, if that makes you feel better. The Americans begin the Iraqi invasion regardless, and the thing is to make the most of it. My problem is not whether every conflict in the region can be contained, but whether the conflict can be contained to the region. And that is the question on everybody's mind.

    Well, the British and American war planes are patrolling the Iraqi airspace already, so Iraqi sovereignty is an empty shell, so why not take the logical step and invade it? Do you want innocent victimes to die in silence or a military campaign to get it over and done with? Could it be that it is the idealists who are fooling themselves?

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 7:29 am
    Jesus, Jari, I didn't know Iraq's victims count to be that big. Well, I'm certainly glad that Serbs are no longer legitimate targets of America. No matter if they invade Iraq or not, a lot of harm has been done to that small country of 10 million people. I don't get it - each country in the world is capable of making weapons of mass destruction (actually much more capable than Iraq since they are not monitored constantly by Americans), and most of them have reasons to hate America one way or another. Why is it so important that Iraq doesn't get a chance to do so, even at the cost of millions of innocent Iraq's civilians? How is it possible that Iraq and Iran are considered to belong to the same 'axis of evil' when Iraq fought with Iran for 10 years, for reasons that they didn't like Islam fundamentalism? My parents have worked there in seventies, Iraq was then a big building site. Sadam, unlike other Arab leaders didn't invest money from oil into bying luxuries from the West, but into development of industry and agriculture. It was a huge project that included a lot of Yugoslavs, since we were a neutral country and able construction workers, but there were many others from all around the world. For example, with a huge project of irrigation, they've managed to make a fertile land in the middle of the desert, capable of giving 4 harvests a year. It was America who tricked Iraq into war with Iran, 10 years war that produced no benefit to any of the sides, and no need to say caused great destruction and empoverishment of Iraq (as any war does). As I understood from my parents, that was the real goal of pushing Iraq into that war - to not allow it to grow too much, as they would then be much less dependant of the West and control the prices of the oil. Instead of getting help from America afterwards, they've received blackmails that they need to repay the debts. When they've asked Kuwait to help them repay them, they've refused. In my understanding, Iraq has always considered Kuwait a part of it's territory, so probably that is the reasoning behind Sadam's seizure of Kuwait. So that's it. That's the reason Americans believe that Sadam is capable of using an A-bomb to get his revenge, knowing that it would mean annihilation of his country, and he'll dissapear together with the rest of folks there? Sorry guys, I just don't get it. It seems everyone refusing to obey America is a maniacal mass-murderer by definition, and so are the people surrounding him? Wasn't Slobo described as such, and we can see he didn't ever consider possibility of making an A-bomb although he had the neccessary components? But I agree with Jari, biggest mercy Iraq's citizens can expect at this point is to be invaded by NATO. It's better a slave than a grave. Ask any Iraq's child dying of hunger, or it's mother. So thank you NATO for being so mercifull.

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 11:01 am
    I did no get answer here, what is the reason(real or hidden)to cancel also from the maps the name "Yugoslavia"?!! What would the possible legal consequences if the old federation quit forever?? I suppose it is like for humans - when he dies then would be no claims whatsoever ??? In that case will not be any chance to pursue Nato even theoretically ??

    Serjoe B
    Italy

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 11:47 am
    My mistake, I remember now trying to open that Coulter article from a link given previously, and for some reason, it failed to open. It worked OK when I pasted your version of the link into the link-bar; thanks Jari.

    You seem to make quite a leap, and a simplistically unjustified one, in seeming to assume that because I am a believer in universal health-care and education (and I am) that that is what makes me a supporter of Milosevic, who evidently believes in the same things. On that basis, I'd better watch it, in case those like me, sharing those vaguely? socialistic? beliefs and myself are accused of being supporters of Stalin's methods, which I'm not! Or of Clinton's, which I also am not, in spite of him having played around with ideas of universal health-care in the US.

    ;-)

    Like most in the West, I swallowed most of the stuff about Milosevic and the Serbs hook, line and sinker; until I stumbled on some web-site or another (can't remember now, but it wasn't Emperor's Clothes), that seemed to contradict everthing that had been spoon-fed me by the equally NATO spoon-fed mainstream media. Since then I have hardly stopped following links on those issues ...

    ... largely for purposes of corroboration of what initially seemed unbelievable to me ...

    It's also not the case that Milosevic, democratically elected three times, had rejected, by any means, Western ideas of "free" enterprise and market forces, nor even the concept of selling off parts of the Yugoslav infrastructure to foreign interests. Nor was he exactly not a sop, at least for a time, for all the IMF / World Bank "remedies" insisted on (literally eventually at the point of a gun in the Rambouillet Agreement, which, as we know, he did oppose). So any more fundamentalist "socialists" backing Milosevic for the reasons you intimate, would not have been betting on a particularly appropriate horse.

    As far as the selective memri of Memri is concerned there is little doubt what their agenda is:- basically to present everything and anything that they perceive as negative concerning Arab world media, to the exclusion of a more balanced wider presentation; in order to further the US/Israeli unjustifiably mish-mashed-together "war on terrorism", and to encourage further outrages by those countries in it's name, as well as to excuse said outrages:-

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/
    journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

    Your paragraph:-

    "It is a common criticism to accuse MEMRI and JWR of one-sidedness. That happens when you think in Western terms. "When you have samples of Iraqi and Palestinian official statements, I think that is the whole truth, because there are no opinions in Iraq and Palestine except the official one. Are the MEMRI and JWR suddenly the only one-sided sources because they are opposite to what you think?""

    ... deserves more attention:-

    1) That "common criticism" of Memri and JWR is entirely deserved. I don't mean to say that all that a source with an obvious agenda should or can be discounted, but the reader should be aware of that agenda and make appropriate judgements. ... remember Western mainstream media and Yugoslavia!

    2) Memri and JWR do think in Western terms! They know full well, as well as Ruderless Feign, just how propaganda works in the West, as do now more ex?-Yugoslavs. Irony that I understand is that, in this regard, the ex?-Yugoslavs and the Palestinians more resemble each other in their (once?) naivety in this regard than otherwise.

    3) I totally fail to see how samples can in any way be representative of the whole truth. There's something more than tautological about that, I feel.

    4) Nor do I believe that the only Palestinian viewpoint permitted is the one according to Yasser Arafat. There are supposedly more "moderate" Palestinian views in the region, which are known, though I doubt you will see them advertised by Memri.

    5) Of course, I do not automatically consign a source as "one-sided" because it may be at odds with what I think. Otherwise I would not hold my now less anti-Milosevic and less anti-Serb views than previously:- I would have discounted all those sources of information that eventually "conspired" to change my opinion.

    You have to consider, however, just who it is that comprises a particular source of information, what their source of funding is, and what is their agenda, either stated or otherwise deduced. In this regard, B92, which is apparently one of the lesser biassed media in the FYR removed from it's web-site all information concerning it's sponsors. I only hope that was because they began to make enough advertising revenue to make them independent of those sponsors, and because quite rightly they were somewhat ashamed that their once? sponsors be known; as opposed to some more sinister reasoning.

    Your argument for invasion of Iraq, and yes, it does make it better that you "have problems" with what you "said", seems to me to open a whole-other and rather large can of worms.

    On that same basis, you could argue that we should all be sad that MI6 failed in their attempts to get the go ahead for their plan to assassinate Milosevic in 1992, for the reason that he was helping to arm the Bosnian Serbs (as if the Americans and the Germans, and probably the Brits weren't arming the other side, ah well, what's good for the goose clearly isn't good for the gander); or alternatively that the West, rather than then and later negotiating with him, should have kidnapped him (rather than later, as they did) and put him on "trial" in front of whatever "Court" they could quickly concoct (the West seems remarkably adept at quickly concocting "Courts" to try the people of other nations, and extremely tardy with Courts who's jurisdiction they would also be subject to).

    Who could doubt that if what the West told the World about Milosevic being a "second Hitler" to be blamed for, well, to be blamed for pretty much everything, and the Serbs as a people being "evil", even if beguiled by the former to be so, that the FYRs would be much better off now, avoiding for the most part the internecine very uncivil civil wars they endured?

    ... Which, it strikes me, is the same argument you now give for the ouster of Iraq's leader - a secularist, and without doubt, a one time provider of benefits to the Iraqi people.

    Your argument also seems to give the green light to the West, the US in particular, to impose it's Weltanshauung on any region of the World it chooses too; just as April Glaspie pretty much once gave Hussein the green light for the invasion of the slant-drilling democratic poster-boy "nation" of Kuwait. Hell, may be you are right, perhaps no one can stop them. Nevertheless, I don't think you can be too surprised if some want to make that exercise into one expensively bought by the Americans.

    That argument also assumes that, in the absence of Milosevic, the West would not have chosen some other Yugoslav leader to christen as the "new Hitler", and everything turned out pretty much the same anyway. Someone like Seselj comes to mind, who Milosevic once criticised as being a nationalist nutcase. ... I understand they made up later ... and Milosevic actually supports him now ... not only American politics makes strange bedfellows!!!

    Jari, I have tremendous respect for your thoughtful writings here, especially the intricate legal analyses that you do, so please do not think otherwise. I only know about this forum as your work here has appeared, been "lifted", so to speak, onto another forum.

    That doesn't mean, of course, that we have to necessarily agree on all things, albeit I have yet to see anything of yours on the FYRs that I have a problem with. I guess if we have to have disagreement on the ME and Iraq, then that's just the way it is; another topic, another forum.

    And, as you say, Bush is a dunce.

    ;-)

    _________________

    Oh yea, with reference again to Gogol's poem, I think I misundertood his intro:-

    "A couple of yeras I wrote:"

    I now think this means "a couple of verses I wrote", I initially interpreted it as "a couple of years ago I wrote".

    In the case I am right, then, Joe P, also think:-

    bin Laden's Bosnian passport, his and his lieutenants' reported sometime presence (FBI) also in KosovO.

    The large part that fundamentalist Muslim Jihad beheaders played in the break-up of the FYR (Nasir Oric's videos available in Blockbuster yet, folks?).

    How grateful the West thinks the Muslim World should be (the West keeps referring to it) to them for helping them "throw off the yoke of tyranny" (ha, ha), in the FYRs.

    How 19 "pilots" demonstrated the "Muslim" World's gratitude on 9/11.

    ... etc ... . Hey, but that's only my interpretation.

    Dennis Revell
    USA

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 12:04 pm
    Monday September 02, 2002 at 11:01 am

    "I did no get answer here, what is the reason(real or hidden)to cancel also from the maps the name "Yugoslavia"?!!" I'm afraid that's what "Balkanisation" means. And to me that verb implies something that "one" has done to "oneself", as opposed to being entirely "achieved" by "oneself"!

    "What would the possible legal consequences if the old federation quit forever??" Who knows?

    "I suppose it is like for humans - when he dies then would be no claims whatsoever ??? In that case will not be any chance to pursue Nato even theoretically ?? That's probably it! At least very advantageous from the West's point of view, should something really "bad" happen, and anything vaguely resembling justice sneak up on the World and take it in it's grip!

    Dennis Revell
    USA

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 12:16 pm
    Dennis Revell is absolutely right. FreeRepublic is a right wing website. Their only goal is to bash Clinton. Ann Coulter is one of them. She may have her following but there are many who despise this woman who is really vicious. I was happy to read her column regarding Milosevic but passed it off as her usual way of getting at Clinton and wanting now to go after Iraq. If she helps some to see the truth regarding Milosevic it is alright with me. However, I am not kidding myself I know she cares nothing about Milosevic, Serbs, or the Balkans.

    There were FEW from either of the parties who tried to stop the bombing of Yugoslavia (our media refers to it now as bombing of Kosovo). One who stands out is a Democrat Congressman by the name of Dennis Kucinich,a Croatian American. Bless this man who was born in the United States and does not want to become part of the ugly hatreds born and bred in Europe. The American born Serbs in the US, loved and associated with the Croatian Americans and never did they feel any animosity toward them. I believe they all felt a kinship.Many American Serbs married American Croatians.

    As far as Fox news goes, they too are just Clinton haters.If they can help the Serbs, good, but they did plenty bashing of Serbs during the bombiing and can be loud and hateful.

    As I heard Professor Howard Zinn say last night on CSPAN, “Truth is Very Powerful.” Keep posting. I hope more from Serbia post.

    Kathryn Love
    SJC
    USA

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 3:09 pm

    First, thanks for Dennis Revell words of support.

    My intention was to have written: "A couple of years ago I wrote", I really, I never meant it to be a poem, it would have been nice but probably it would not happen and it does not need to be since its meaning is perfectly understandable

    Jaris seems to be in favour of some form of national euthanasia for Iraq. I wonder if the principle could also be applied to other suffering nations, like say Argentina: bomb it, invade it and put the IMF in the Casa Rosa, Buenos Aires (US dollars only please) and good times will be back again. Seems to be a truly merciful policy derived of an already humanitarian one; bombing.

    It fils my heart when I read ideas which are fully in agreement with mine, the analysis of Bogdan Oparnica's parents when they were in Iraq in the 70's are one of these instances. Little they knew Yugoslavia would come to the same treatment almost 30 years later.

    Dennis is right the map of the Balkans is very much the same as after 1941

    The "The New York Time" has an article on Montenegro Nato's Depleted Uranium, a gentle (to DU) article considering 350 tons of it were dumped in Iraq during the Gufl War One, another undisclosed but nasty quantity in Kosovo (Serbia), and preparations are made to use it again even un-depleted or shall I say fully completed, in pleted form on Iraq, the Fertile Crescent to render it once for all unfertile and ready for GM grains from Monsanto. No, it can't be true.

    For the trial followers:

    The prosecutor Mr. Nice (NATO) thinks Kosovo will be over Monday or Tuesday. A list of witnesses was read and no mention of Rick Holbrooke was heard.

    And last but not least Mr. Milosevic was wearing an splendid red tie for which I can't find any meaning but I am sure it has one. Red . . .mmm.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 3:21 pm
    Kathryn, Although Free Republic is a right wing site, it was one of the original sites which saw thru the Kosovo debacle in real time. Go and check their archives at the time. Lokk at the format of the site where anyone can post articles from the press and anyone can criticise them and be published. It is one of the best sites on the net and it's discussion forum has been rock solid agaainst the attack on Yugoslavia. Anyone who has tried to justify it has been soundly trashed by the likes of 'kate22','Vooch 'and others. Even to the extent that it is suspected that some of the posters (e.g. Hoplite) are US paid counter propagandists. It was not coincidence that they were sued by Newsweek and the LA Times

    j r
    norway

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 6:01 pm
    Not liking the New World Order is at least as much a "right wing" position as a "left" one. One of the problems with politics for the last 200 years is the left/right dichotomy. We get a knee jerk reaction that if the lefties think one thing then rightwingers have to think the opposite & vic versa & Blair, Clinton & other Bilderbergers play off both sides. Are European union, establishing Nazi Croatia, establishing Moslem Kosovo, War Cimes trials, national sovereignty or the rule of international law left/right issues or human being issues.

    Neil Craig
    UK

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 7:58 pm
    For information on depleted uranium read “Was The Gulf War a Nuclear War“ at http://news.suc.org/forums.

    Thanx J.R. for your response.



    Kathryn Love
    SJC
    USA

  • Monday September 02, 2002 at 9:04 pm
    Much obliged, D.R. USA, JR norway, Carla Berg/Austria; I found the sites recommended by you. As for Kathryn Love/USA hoping to see more post from Serbia, well, I'm afraid the euthanasia has been successfully applied here: with the economy bombed back to the 19th century, politically humiliated into "democratic" overthrowing of Milosevic, force-fed with "reformist" puppet govt, poor (and accustomed not to be). No wonder I could detect only Bogdan from Belgrade participating here; people are too busy surviving. A question: would you believe that I was disappointed when the bombings stopped? Because of the price paid for that blissful silence of the air-raid sirens. I crazily wished the bombs to continue, so that finally the wise western countries, Europe in the first place, realize what they are doing to us and to stop doing it. How naive I was. I have no more illusions. Still, like I said before, it warms me to read your clever posts. Dennis, how did I guess beforehand that you could not possibly be an American?! True about Iraq: our people working there called it a piece of Europe in the Arab world. As regards President Milosevic, I think he is only too aware he has been already convicted; he's just trying to go through it with a bit of dignity left to him (they don't leave him much). And to repeat simple truths whenever possible (between shut-off microphones, lying witnesses, sneering May). Another question: Have you read the unbeliveably sly suggestion given by an esteemed jurist on the home page here, that Milosevic should plead guilty of "benevolent ethnical cleansing" and thus get acquitted? What do you think of that?

    Vera Martinovic
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 12:56 am
    Occasionally out of the same old .fluff that one gets on Larry Kink Live (CNN) an admission by Earl Spencer, Princess Diana’s brother, that BBC is a second rate Media outlet. Where are the clear unbiased minds in the English establishment that have allowed BBC to become a second rate Media outlet? Where is the investigative journalism for which BBC was once first among equals? If Jackie Rowland represents the best of BBC I would like to hear from their worst. I have seen witness after witness commit perjury and the Western Media is silent.

    The same media is silent on the events of September 11th. Presently, I have no evidence to prove that Sep 11th was foreseen by DMI and Mossad, but I would speculate that the American and British secret service were informed as was the joint British/American shadow government. Why does the Media refuse to ask the hard question unless they are in the same bed?

    We know that the Israeli intelligence had followed the hijackers for three years and this intelligence was shared with US and British agencies. Were there homing devices in the towers and the White House? Was the White House missed because of the cell phone and the brave passengers? The president was conveniently home on the range. What is the media afraid of? As Howard Zinn stated “Truth is Very Powerful” and they are afraid of the truth in both the .NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and Sep 11th planned tragedy. Howard Zinn is the author of many fine books. I would recommend to all of you his “The Peoples History of the United States”. One passage in that book on the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti is very touching. I wonder if Milosevic trial will produce such gems.

    Back to reality the results of NATO balkanization of Yugoslavia is economic dependence on America and Europe. German and EU control and domination of the economic life of the former Yugoslav Republics purchased with blood and devalued dinars. Yugoslavs were once masters in their own home, now they are servants on their knees. The results of Sep 11th: ballooning federal funding for the industrial military complex, globalization and tentacles in Central Asia. Manifest Destiny, for all practical reasons, now includes Mexico and Canada. Central Europe has fallen as have the Balkans, and Iran and Iraq are surrounded. Iraq is next. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time and this is American policy for global control.

    America is using its military power to blackmail the world. It is not accidental that they have refused to place their signature on the World Court (ICC). They bully the world into accepting their criminal behavior. Media why don’t you ask the questions on NATO’s Criminal behavior?

    Iraq will pay the price for the losses of Boeing and every other major US Corporation. The price that the Iraqi people will pay does not end with the corporations it includes the stock market losses and huge foreign withdrawals from American banks. Media ask the questions if you are not part of the conspiracy of silence.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 1:22 am
    BELGRADE, SEPTEMBER 1, 2002. /RIA Novosti correspondent Alexander Slabynko/ -- Russia is doing all it can to promote Balkan stability, said Academician Yevgeny Primakov as he was introducing to the public his book, "In Big Politics for Years," in today's Belgrade gala. Prominent political expert, intelligence veteran, Mr. Primakov was once Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs and later Prime Minister. Now he is President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. When a reporter asked him about prospects to settle the Kosovo issue, Yevgeny Primakov highlighted a major shift in Western stances on the matter. If Kosovo secedes from federal Yugoslavia, extremist trends will be encouraged in European Muslim organisations, warn certain analysts. Western politicians, too, repeatedly spoke up for Yugoslavia to retain territorial integrity, pointed out Mr. Primakov. He does not think those pronouncements are sheer propaganda. The more firm the territorial integrity principle is the farther Europe and the entire world are from chaos, so the West is interested in the Kosovo problem settled by Belgrade - but it is to find a solution which follows Western blueprints, they insist. Yevgeny Primakov retains his dislike of the Hague tribunal, and thinks it is out for a political trial. "It is unacceptable when not a man but the entire Serb nation comes under trial," he snapped. The Russian political veteran is willing to offer testimony in The Hague on the Kosovo drama and the Dayton agreement - events in which he had been directly involved, he said today as on a number of previous occasions.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 2:01 am
    With the war rhetoric escalating in Washington, the conversation careened toward Iraq on this forum. And now Jari appears to be advocating a mercy shot for Iraq as well. How about just leaving Iraq alone, anyone? Saddam has proved that he is most dangerous when forced into the corner. The inconsistency of making the case for the impending war against Iraq in the context of the “war against terrorism” is utter nonsense, and is so transparently false - it's not even funny. If it was suddenly obvious that the only way to wage a war against Al Qaeda was to take the war to the supporting nations, the U.S. ought to be bracing against Riyadh and Islamabad now. While the links of the 9/11 assassins to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are as abundant as they are ignored in Washington, their involvement with Saddam is circumstantial at best and nonexistent at worst. There were more American Al Qaeda members to date than Iraqis. Besides, Saddam would not tolerate anything in Iraq that is not under his absolute control - let alone Islam-crazed terrorists - the ultimate loose cannon. That Saddam slaughtered his Kurds? When did the U.S. even reprimand Turkey, the NATO-darling for the same on its side of the border? Evoking previous U.S. unprovoked wars against sovereign nations (Yugoslavia) as precedent does not serve the high moral ground either: most them belong to a hall of shame of the U.S. history. There you have the Milosevic connection. To paraphrase the famous 1992 election slogan: It's the oil, stupid. As Jessica Fugate seems to suggest in today's Boston Globe op-ed (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/245/
    oped/Gently_gently_on_Saudi_reforms+.shtml), the U.S. cannot formally file for a divorce from Saudi Arabia (with whom Washington's marriage of convenience is falling apart)without gaining full control of the Iraqi oil fields that would allow the U.S. to give the Saudis the finger at some point. "Weapons inspections" are not the point - the U.S. would rather not have them - they may reveal that there are no "weapons of mass destruction" at all - e.g. Scott Ritter has been ostracized by the U.S. media. Forget the "tyrant" tune as well - Washington will be perfectly comfortable with another dictator in Baghdad who plays by the rules of our imperial masters.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 2:32 am
    A major part of the defense will have to centre on the anti-Serb bias of the tribunal. The bias can take many forms, and the decisive form is the review of prima facie cases. The trouble is: how do you convince a court that it is biased? It will not accept that kind of criticism, because it is biased. So you have to make the court act like Buridan's ass, which cannot decide between two equal amounts of food placed before it and starves to death. These two amounts of food are anti-Serb bias and pro-American bias. This is the only way to get the court's attention.

    Milosevic isn't in any position to turn down help that would really be to his advantage. It is hard enough to get him free as individual, without him and his associated rigging the fight against himself with the political baggage. This is another point for the defense to take into account. It is his individual criminal responsibility that is on trial. He may damage his defense by talking too much in the name of his people or his ideology.

    But of course, everything depends on the wishes of the defendant. He can choose politicking in court or he can choose a legitimate line of defense. But I think he has already accepted the fact that his political career is irredeemably lost. Why else would he have suggested his followers to vote for Seselj? Has he so lost his touch that he didn't know that this would break up his political party? Or was it a signal that he wants to quit politics and get home, even if it means accepting help from the right? Even if he accepts help and wins, he will be remembered as the winner, the guy who beat the system. But I think the greatest reward for him would be that he would be allowed to spend the rest of his life with his family, which is a goal worth fighting for, and in the last analysis, the only goal that really counts.

    Americans need Milosevic to win just as much as he does. If the US attacks Iraq, there will be all kinds of questions of criminal responsibility. From the Muslim world, we will hear the more or less clearly formulated question whether it is permissible for an infidel to punish Muslims like that. And to show that it is, Bush will have to do something about the ICTY, which has gone to great lengths not to punish Muslim, so that the Muslims wouldn't get the idea that this tribunal was designed by infidels to punish Muslims. And the Americans have to do something about the tribunal anyway, because in principle, Milosevic is winning this case, and whatever the outcome, it will be good for the Americans, if they are perceived to be on the side of real justice. After the Iraqi campaign, there will be no other way for the present American policy to survive. After the Iraqi campaign, America will have to abolish the tribunal to legitimate its policy in the Middle East just as much as it needed to establish the tribunal to legitimate its policy in the Balkans. And what will history remember? Only that the Americans supported the tribunal until they noticed that it is a hoax.

    And Milosevic needs Americans too. What if he wins? Will there will be an uproar from the Muslim world? The Iraqi campaign will send a not-so-subtle signal that it doesn't matter. What if Americans did offer to help Milosevic? Could he afford to turn down the offer? Until now his fiery defense has served a purpose in mobilizing the public opinion in his support. But what is the public opinion good for, if not to arrange his release somehow? So until now the people have been mesmerized by his performance, but that will surely change, if the people notice that for Milosevic the political speeches are an end in themselves.

    I find it unbeliavable that the socialist won't accept the support from the Freerepublic people (of which I don't know so much), because they are only using the socialists against their own enemies, the Democrats. I daresay the Freerepublic people are not limited in this way. You cannot deal with the Milosevic case without at least seeing the socialist point of view. And how about that famous socialist solidarity? Look at how the socialists May and Nice treat their comrade. The socialists are in no position to be choosy. In this case, no one is.

    If Milosevic gets high-profile support from the Americans, you can be sure that the tribunal will lose the Congress funding the minute May closes the microphone.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 3:54 am
    Yasser Arafat portrays himself and is portrayed as one of the most moderate leaders in Palestine. That seems to be a matter of political agenda. At least we know that he can't be more moderate than himself.

    Yes, Iraq was a US foothold against Iran. Does that mean it shouldn't be used as a foothold? Or is the suggestion now that the US must attack Egypt and Saudi Arabia directly, because the 9-11 hijackers were nationals of these countries? Yes, Saddam was a friend of the US. So was Osama bin Laden.

    The US is lying about the WMDs. Who isn't? So what if that is not the real reason for attacking Iraq? Should you sue the US government for lying?

    If you want to argue that sanctions against Iraq are evil, you can come up with figures as high as a million people starved to death. The figure changes dramatically (downwards), if you argue that if the figure is so high, it is better to invade the country. And can anyone argue that the sanctions regime was not blessed by the Security Council?

    People who make the decisions, have no time to participate in this discussion. We may congratulate ourselves on how smart we are, but do we really make a difference?

    J N
    Finland

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 7:39 am

    The answer is yes. It makes a difference. Silence is far more damaging than speaking out. Silence is docility, submmission, abdication. Can you imagine a court of justice where the witness will say: "so what, what difference would it make?"

    Questioning authority is a must, critical questioning is essential for the keeping of the truth in any society.

    If anything this forum should expand, get better facilities, reach a larger number of participants and use the opinions of the participants, our opinions as a base to build opinions where ther in none

    Take for example "The New York Times" forums on the Balkans, now on the Trial. That forum has the state of the art internet site, where you can correct your postings, delete it, cross-referrence it, etc, and yet the participants have really little if any thing to say, or if they have they don't!



    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 11:51 am
    Not long after Bush took office he bombed Bagdad. That was not very popular... if I recall. Why did he do it? Was it to show Hussein that he was going to finish what his father started? I for one, am so tired of waking up to find that we are bombing some country or other. If all Americans felt the way I do, there would be no more bombing whatsoever.

    Some are speculating that all this Iraq talk is to distract from the slowing down of the economy and the corruption of the Corporations, before the November elections. Bush is trying to keep the House and win back the Senate and has to keep these issues off the front pages. I for one am hoping this is what it all about.

    Iraq and Serbia were doomed the day Madeline Albright became Secretary of State. This woman alone has broken down the image of the Madonna figure in women. We now know that women can be every bit as evil as any man. She has made it quite clear that starving sick children are no concern of hers. She could have stopped it in a minute but she preferred to blame it on Hussein.

    As for myself not accepting help from the FreeRepublic site. I do not believe I wrote that. I believe I made it clear that I doubted they were truely interested in Serbia and Milosevic. I have always felt that Clinton bombed Kosovo to change the headlines from “Girl Talk” to “humanitarian bombing.” The right wing could not stop Clinton from being elected so they set out to destroy him. Was this good for America? No! Was it good for the Serbs? No!

    For five hundred years the Serbs fought for their independence. It is believed by some that Europe was saved from the Ottoman empire because the Serbs never gave up. Read “Black Lamb and Grey Falcon” by Rebecca West. Europe repaid the Serbs by going along with the bombing. I wonder how they can stand to look at themselves in the mirror. Macedonia turned their backs on their Serb brothers and look at Macedonia now.

    Milosevic will lose in the Hague, but throughout the world the Serbs will never believe this was anything but a Kangaroo court. The Serbs have been the victims of ten years of sanctions and war. All started by Germany, who persuaded the Croats to seek independence. Why did Germany do that? Who started two world wars? It was not the Serbs as Clinton has told the American people.

    Serbs have had a sad, long and brave history fighting for independence. Now they are stuck with the black mark of selling Milosevic to the Hague. Their own blood. They allowed Djindjic who never received one vote from the people and a bunch of “students for hire”to blacken their history. I hope they wake up.

    Milosevic knows he will lose, but he is fighting a good fight in the courtroom not only for himself but for all Serbs. I am sure Serbs worldwide will remember and hand that information down to their children and grandchildren.



    Kathryn Love
    SJC
    USA

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 12:05 pm
    I don't get it, I've sent the post this morning and it still didn't get through, although other posts appeared.. I'll try once more... Hmm, strange, I made a post this morning, but it's still not there. Maybe it's too long? I'm posting it now, cut into pieces.. I know I've promised to give an insight to political situation over here a long time ago, but it's a hard task that I don't feel I am capable of performing good, because I've developed same type of disguist with politicians and media that is predominant with lot of Serbs after all what's happened. The worst time for watching the TV and read the papers is the election time. Media are full of spitting, accusations, bringing into public a dirty laundry of others. Then you hear denials and accusations from the other side. Then the process repeats n times. After a while, you start to be ashamed of all the sides and wonder how on Earth these people got where they are now. Whatever, I'll give a short overview of how I perceive the current political parties, not based from current propaganda, but the way I perceive them based on their actions in past. Please, if there are any people from Belgrade who can give more accurate information and be more objective, please do. First of all, the one probably most interesting to you, SRS and Seselj. What I can say about Seselj is this: he's a great demagogue. The simplicity of his solutions and the great amount of information he posseses on just about everything is a catch that is hard to resist. He's unbeatable in a TV-duel, he's undoubtefully very intelligent and educated. Problem is that he uses demagogy in a way that from information that is absolutely true he derives conclusions that are broad assumptions, but that suit him well. His style is too bombastic, he sells rudeness to present himself as an uncompromising fighter. And this goes well for him to get him supporters of 'football huligans' type. I don't know of any financial scandals connected to him, but in my place, Batajnica, where he had a lot of supporters, we had people from his party putting kiosks in a state property without feeling they need to explain to anybody what right do they have to do it. Nobody really wanted to ask them judging by their muscles and haircuts. The ways of his followers are the ones of 'self proclaimed righteousness', they hide behind their great leader's demagogy and anybody standing in their way is simply a traitor or a national minority or a gay or whatever name they can come up with. I don't want to offend people who are following him, but I must admit all of the people I know supporting him didn't have a lot of education and a lot of them are bullies. However, the stance of many people is that we're sick of bombastic politicians. His kin might be good for a war time, but in peace we need more civilized, respectfull man, that will take care not to put us in trouble with his un-tactfull statements. He represents a good opposition, as he is a great critic, but he's not a man of a long-term strategy. His party never had more than 8% of votes, except once, when people were so sick and tired of Milosevic and SPS that he almost won elections (democrats were boycotting the elections that time), it is my opinion that he actually won them, but he let Milosevic steal the votes, because he was afraid to take charge of Serbia in a shape it was at that time, or simply because he wasn't really a opposition to Milosevic, but just a player to distract people from voting for the real enemies of the regime. However, after those elections, SRS had a majority in parliament, and for the duration of their mandates they didn't really make any difference, so it was a dissapointment after all. That was his one and only chance, I don't think he's ever gonna get nearly that number of votes. Now, I can only guess why Milosevic said to vote for him. Perhaps due to the fact that SPS is falling apart anyway, and they don't have a strong leader to put in front. Mira is definately not a horse to bet on, as she is despised from both the left and right, she has used Slobo's popularity to promote her party JUL that was the most hypocrit, corrupt party that existed on our spaces. Since a lot of SPS members knew of Slobo's love and devotion for Mira, they couldn't express their annoyance with the people who were members of the Jul, who were there for privileges and NOT for their political orientation. Mira seems not to be aware of that, she is I think true believer in Communism, but all of the people around her just used her to get to Slobo and the privileges in order to get to where the money is. It was so funny to hear that she is compared to Hillary Clinton, no,no, it's completely vice versa. She's the one who gained from her husband's popularity, she would not get any votes without him. About Mira wearing the pants in their house... I don't feel that way. You couldn't feel that in him until the demise of his power, when he actually started using communist rhetorics, so unfitting to his style. It's definatelly not calling his opponents 'NATO poodles' that brought him a fame, but his European style, the one of confidence and concentration on the matter at hand, not the spitting on others. It's too easy to spit and call people names, but that's not the way to achieve popularity, at least not for a long term. Remember that Slobo's daughter, Maria, joined the SRS. Maybe that was his reason, among the others. Also, it's quite likely that if SRS won that they would try to do everything possible to disrupt cooperation with Hague, as playing on national feelings is what they do, so that gives a better chance to Slobo. Or maybe it was his last chance of expressing spite, anger at the West and at the government that delivered him. As for the paedophile example, remember that Seselj had his private army fighting in Bosnia, yet he's not wanted by Hague, so I don't see how does that proove that Slobo is guilty of a war crime, his support for Seselj. Well, this certainly came out a long post. My problem is that this is going to be quite unreadable, as I missed your explanations on how to make new paragraphs. Could somebody please reiterate them, or tell me how do I get to download an archieve, so I can read it from there. I have a problem accessing archieve, as I always get a error message of '30 seconds execution time exceeded'. Has anybody experienced similar problems? I will describe the rest of parties in my next (hopefully formatted) post

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 1:07 pm
    Can't write the formatting rules as they "appear", so to speak, but this is how long-windedly:-

    New paragraph is P in angle brackets:- (left_angle_bracket)P(right_angle_bracket) but without the ()!

    Bold:- B in angle brackets. Switch of by prefacing B with /

    Italic:- I in angle brackets. Switch off by prefacing I with /

    Hence, for example:-

    "American foreign policy has been and still is the most destructive man-made force since WW II."

    ... has the bolding and italicisation produced by:-

    "American foreign policy (left_angle_bracket)B(right_angle_bracket)has been(left_angle_bracket)/B(right_angle_bracket) and (left_angle_bracket)I(right_angle_bracket)still is(left_angle_bracket)/I(right_angle_bracket) the most destructive man-made force since WW II."

    There may be other formatting rules I'm unaware of, I remember seeing someone trying to use block-quotes (unsuccessfully) earlier on.

    And nine (left_angle_bracket)P(right_angle_bracket)s were used in this post!

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 1:19 pm
    Apart from the mess up I made with trying to italicise some of the (left/right_angle_bracket)s that I made!

    ;-)

    No such risky attempt again made here!

    ;-)

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 4:46 pm
    Bogdan, Prefix the sentence you wish to begin a new paragraph with following group of three characters:

    >P<

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 4:49 pm
    Correction: Prefix the sentence you wish to begin a new paragraph with following group of three characters: <P>

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 4:52 pm
    Bogdan, on a re-reading I notice you asked some questions which remain unanswered. As a an agnostic lapsed Christian and, after Kosovo, a lapsed life long bizarre Labour Party supporter who gullibly believed that the majority of members were socialists electing and supporting only a socialist leader here is my two pennies worth. That is probably all it is worth. Take it as a view of ‘The man on the Clapham omnibus’:

    Q: “Where is a difference between what's morally acceptable in war and what isn't?”

    A: Legally there are the agreed conventions. They do not help much if the other side ignores them and wipes you out.

    Morally (rules of conduct which come mostly from the religions): From the modern Christian point of view War is surely the suspension of morality or at least a major part of moral conduct. Surely nothing is less moral than to deliberately kill people.

    Here is a relevant comment by an air warrior: “That the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden.” Robert Saunby, then Deputy Air Marshall to ‘Bomber’ Harris.

    Q: “Who is the one side that can judge others?”

    A: The side that prevails. One cannot escape ‘Might is Right’: right or wrong.

    Q: “Why now (at least declaratively) we're judging all sides (except NATO) while in Nuremberg there was only one side on trial?”

    A: It does not seem to me that all sides are being judged and why should Nato be excepted. Undeserved aggression is a war crime. Deploying dumb cluster bombs from three miles high over civilian areas is a war crime. Bombing public buildings is a war crime. Not one KLA leader has been indicted by the ICTY for the many war crimes committed on the Kosovo minorities.

    Q: “What is the weight of the fact WHO started the war?”

    A: I am advised that according to Christian conventions the initiator must have a ‘Just Cause’, have failed all other means of conflict resolution, must create no worse evil than those attacked and must have a reasonable chance of success: In Kosovo none but the last clause was valid. How this squares with Archbishop Carey’s sanctioning of the bombing of Serbia defies all reason. The Roman Catholic Church stiffens these conditions with the qualification that the nation attacked must first be an aggressor nation. As I understand it according to Islam, at least Islamic extremists (who usually eventually get to power), a ‘Just Cause’ is simply for your ‘enemies’ to be ‘Infidels’.

    Q: “How it is possible that attacking side is considered victim?”

    He who wins dares - to rewrite the history: Again ‘Might is Right’. Like death and taxes it is one of life’s inevitabilities.

    Q: “Are you, if you're really out of other options and being the attacked side, entitled to actions that you surely know will bring lot of civilian victims?”

    A: War is the suspension of moral conduct. One does whatever is believed necessary to win or avoid defeat, within the conventions if possible. These actions are never clear-cut. I believe Saunby had his finger on the pulse.

    Q: “What is a legal distinction in treating aggression of one country on other and treating a civil war, in which one national minority is trying to separate a territory by force. What is a rightful intervention in civil war?”

    A: Why should there be any distinction? Surely ‘Just Cause’ and the aggressor should be considered in both cases. It was an unwritten convention before NWO that one did not take sides in intra-national disputes. In Kosovo Nato promoted the civil war. The KLA would never have started their campaign of terror and brought it to a successful conclusion, with greater evil than before, without Nato support. I believe that “Minding one’s own business” is generally a good moral principle. There are exceptions for example Rwanda where the West could and should have intervened but did not.

    We need to establish the reasons for Nato’s war on Serbia over Kosovo. A ‘Just War’ this was not.

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 6:30 pm

    The West was mostt naturally involved in Rwanda and Burundy. without this involvement there would have been no war between Tutsis and Hutus and I am not referring to the Belgians and their legacy only, but to a more direct involment by the French and the US, covert of course, in the immediate days leading to the large scale massacre.

    The Americans told the World they couldn't get "involved" in bringing "peace" everywhere in the Wrold and that they had to be selective in doing so and had decided to deal with Yugoslavia for the time being.

    So the same United Nations Security Resolution was amended to create the Rwanda Tribunal and instead to bring it to "judicious" site and land of the The Hague, it was located in Africa. Any one complaining, like me, about the lack of coverage of the ICTY trials by the Western press would be at a loss finding its Rwandean little sister

    There is still another UN IT on the works, pushed by the US wanting to set her record straight with the Cambodian people I suposse for American responsability in bringing the nightmare of the Khmer Rouge: remember? The very elastic figure of 5 millions victims, never mind the rain of Kissinger blanket bombing, seems to excite the imagination of many proffessional "humanists" in North America and despite Cambodia's protestations the US insists the War Crime Tribunal has to have among others Western (guess what country) prosecutors and judges. International justice is like sharing: "I like what is mine and what is yours to be mine also"

    Sometimes at night waiting for Mr. Milosevic trial's session to start to the usual, "All rise, veuillez vous levez . ." I think what would have Stalin famous prosecutor thought of Mr. Nice (NATO) or Carla del Ponte.

    Ah, I forgot, the trial!:

    Again Mr. Milosevic and its case wins despite the hardheaded prosecution.

    Q: "Why did you not use, written reports to carry your communications with your superior?"

    A: "The MUP building in Belgrade had been detroyed by Nato. Nothing was left. We had only the phone lines. It was war time"

    Blaiming the victims seems to be the Great Moto of this ICTY.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 7:47 pm
    Free republic is indeed a rightwing site. But it's virtue is that you get tons of news which is hard to get. By reading a cross section of what is posted there you learn the art of propaganda. And how to see trough it. It is especially interesting to read about the run up of the new Gulf war;, as was teh case before and during the Kosovo war. It is a comparable scenario, with well timed leaks, press conferences and statements by those who want war. Just repeat it for 6 months, ad in some selective history and demonize as hard as you can the evil other guy. And we aint seen the worst yet, wait untill the 12th of september (Bush speech at UN) and the release of the evidence by Blair and then Bush. Spice the whole thing up with some defector stories. Trow in some UN mumbo jumbo and resolutions and we'll have a war around Christmass. Why? Wasn't there a war on terrosm going on, what about those hearts and minds of Muslims? Why now? My guess, the Iraqi campaign was planned from the first day Bush stepped into the Oval office. 9/11 was just a pre-emptive bummer.

    Some interseting news from the Srebrenica front:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2234868.stm

    Peter Varavejke
    Belgium

  • Tuesday September 03, 2002 at 7:57 pm
    Another great source for news and editorials is:

    WWW.antiwar.com

    P V
    Belgium

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 12:52 am
    The second picture (inset) on the BBC report on the Srebrenica report recommended by PV http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2234868.stm is not from among the Srebrenica pictures. It was pulled from the Kosovo file - perhaps Racak - I have seen it around during the Kosovo war. You can clearly recognize that the trees in the background have no foliage - January versus July. he BBC does not really seem to care any more - any dead body from anywhere would do to make a point.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 2:30 am
    I think Milosevic put it quite well at the beginning of the trial: he is crucified. Indeed, there are some similarities between him and Jesus. Both are to take away the sins of the world. Due to the psychological miracle called projection, people think that by convicting him they are exonerated. But don't kid yourself. Milosevic is not the Messiah that was to come. After he has been convicted, you will go back to your little lives, while he rots in a jail in a country that is not his own. That is why we have to take the defense seriously.

    What is it that you want? Indict Nato? Alas, that is not going to happen. And even if it were, do you think the Nato leaders wouldn't be able to put up just as good a show as Milosevic? Do you want an admission of guilt? I think that the scenario I put forward would work to that effect. The Americans would make a sudden aboutface, and bash Clinton. And Blair? I think it would be enough humiliation for him to be left out voluntarily of the Iraqi campaign. Let him read his Koran. The pro-Muslim bias of the tribunal has suddenly been remedied in a big way.

    Let us remember one thing. It is all about airtime. We are grossly overestimating the capacity of ordinary men and women with our talk here. The ordinary people only want to know if Milosevic is losing. He isn't, and the media won't tell you that. The judges are by no means immune to the public opinion, and there is every reason to believe that they are led by it.

    But the lack of airtime could be a blessing in disguise. Remember, this is the stage that the prosecution is putting its case. So what if the media won't broadcast it? The main thing is to make sure that the media broadcasts it when we get to the phase where Milosevic is putting his case. And it has to be fireworks, so that people will forget whatever happened with the trial until then. That's why I think a sudden change in strategy would be a very good idea.

    I didn't know Newsweek had sued Freerepublic. Doesn't that show that Freerepublic is at least worth suing? It must have pockets deep enough to buy those PR firms that have run the show this far. And to pinpoint even further, I must admit that Ann Coulter would be my choice for Milosevic's trial lawyer. She will do anything to get Clinton nailed. Exactly what we need. She is American. Another point the prosecution misses. She is not too hard to look at, which means airtime. She is a woman, which is a psychological advantage in the encounters with the female witnesses. And in Europe she is unknown, which means the European ladys' magazines will only mentions that she was the woman who made the trial of the century, and her fame will last as long. On the other hand, her real agenda is very close to Bush's, which would secure the backing of the US government. But maybe this is what people fear the most. Do you think she would lose? Or do you fear that she will win? Further, she has practiced law, not exactly international criminal law, but if you look at the courtroom, how many have? She is not the plea bargaining type, so she might go ahead with full acquittal with Milosevic, if only she can bash Clinton and the tribunal he left as his legacy. And still she is no buddy of Milosevic, which will only add to the professionality of the defense. As Larry Flint's lawyer said in the courtroom in the Milos Forman film: "I don't like what Larry Flint does". Now was that such an unfortunate admission?

    Technically, the defense would be straightforward. The tribunal has no jurisdiction in the Croatia and Kosovo cases. The trouble is to convince the tribunal, because it doesn't deal with admissibility. I think the only choice would be to make an affirmative defense that the tribunal has no jurisdiction. Sure, you would have to make the "affirmative defense" that lack of jurisdiction is an affirmative defense, but nobody told not to make double affirmatives. In fact, taking up the admissibility this late in the trial would have the advantage that the judges won't be able to excuse the admissibility by saying that they don't know which way the prosecution will go. We know that the prosecution makes cases like "Milosevic was responsible for the casualties in the prison bombing", which only make sense if you make believe that the Legality of Use of Force has already been decided in Nato's favour, which it of course hasn't and never will. So there is a crucial connection between the two cases, which means Kosovo indictment is inadmissible. It would be a good idea to jot down all the statements made by the prosecution using this kind of inverted logic, because they will ultimately make its case inadmissible.

    Talking about Iraq and euthanasia, you have only two choices: active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Most people would choose passive euthanasia, whereas the active euthanasia would actually save the patient.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 7:16 am
    OK, now the DOS (Democratic Opposition of Serbia) parties. There are too much of them to cover, but the main ones are DS (Djindjic) and the DSS (Kostunica). Those two have by far the biggest potential percent of voters, so I'll concentrate on them.

    DSS - I can't tell much about them, since before 5th of October they were somewhere on the margin. It is Kostunica that has rocketed this party to such high level, with being the DOS candidate in elections that were supposed to overthrow Milosevic. Suddenly, everybody got interested in him, started digging through his past. It was a living proof when even RTS couldn't find nothing on this man, for the people that he is the only uncorrupt politician, and a man of great trust. In the past 13 years he was the only politician not involved in a single affair. Besides, calmness of his personality and the insistence on obeying the law and order was also a blessed refreshment for the people who got very tired of Seselj type rhetorics.

    We've experienced degradation of moral values during the past decade, we have got used to being abused by criminals, robbed by banks(?!), sold-out by politicians. Smugglers, criminals, folk singers, those where the idols of our youth. Not because they were greedy for money, but because it was the fight for survival. Because it was either you beat the system or the system beats you. How can a father that is a professor at university explain to his son why he should study when he receives a misery of a salary and is dependant on his wife smuggling to support him and the family? I could go on and on but I would instead recommend some of the movies we've made at that time, they can paint the picture for you like "Rane (Wounds)", "Ubistvo s predoumisljajem (Premediated Murder)" and many others. It was a very depressive atmosphere, of no hope, no light at the end of the tunnel. Before the fall of Krajina, and later, Bosnia, it was bearable, we considered it a sacrifise we have to take, for our fellow Serbs over there who were in much worse position. We took pride in ourselves for being so brave, to spite the West and survive, to show our moral fibre to the European nations that have so easily sold their soul to the devil. Yet it hurted us so much to hear all those wild accusations of being barbarians, because deep in our hearts all we wanted was to be a part of the civilized world, a part of Europe. We were ashamed of the scum who came at the surface on our side, as they always come out in wars, the war profiteers. All of this I am saying is to explain the popularity of Kostunica, man almost anonymous who became popular overnight. Finally there was a man who we could show to the world and say "look, we're civillized, we're not some Balkan warmongering tribe. We like the law and order as much as you do.". He was nationalist enough not to be suspected as a traitor who will sell us to the west and yet reasonable enough to gain sympathy and support of those non-biased politicians of countries wishing to help us. We all knew that DOS was being financed by the West, but we took it as a neccesary evil. The fact that you took money from the criminals doesn't yet mean you can't do any good for your nation (remember Kennedy?). There was nothing to gain by sticking with Milosevic, as it was obvious that he couldn't stop what was being done to us, in fact he was a catalyst, his pure remaining in power meant a call for more trouble, as most of the NATO propaganda was based on him. For each wrong they do to us they could just repeat over and over the "Butcher of the Balkans" story as an excuse.

    However, Kostunica is not a dynamic person. He's a type of president that would have been favoured in Norway or Sweden, countries with much less problems and needing little corrections on their course of smooth sailing, with his perfect knowledge and blind following of laws and rules. However, for a country with so many problems as this, so desparately in need of reforms in just about any field, with so many enemies, he's too passive. He and his party have done nothing effective to show for these two years of being in power, they've behaved as if they were in opposition all of the time - criticizing the rest of DOS while not taking any responsibility themselves. For example, Kostunica as a president of Yugoslavia was in charge to make some arrangement between Serbia and Montenegro on the future of Yugoslavia. He had two years to do that and ended up with apsolutely no result, nothing to show for. At the end, it was Solana who came and tutored everybody into making a frame agreement in couple of days, such a shame. Kostunica was also the one who should have made a decision on what to do with Milosevic. He has repeated often enough his professional opinion of Hague, yet he was not actively against cooperation. Instead, he seems to have chosen the tactics of stalling, by insisting on law procedures for extradiction to be made, even when it was obvious that the constitutional court was Milosevic's fans (they've proven it on elections). The point that Djindjic made by taking a decisive (and illegal) action with arrest of Milosevic and extradiction of him to Hague was this - none of the politicians (including SPS and Milosevic) have disputed the fact that we must cooperate with the Hague, no matter how we despise it. It was Milosevic himself who have put a signature. Yet none of the politicians were willing to do the dirty job of extradiction, as they knew that people would hate them for that. They were stalling it, as Milosevic was stalling but complying with demands of the West at the end when his people paid a full price of refusal (he put a shameful blockade on Drina, for example). Point of Djindjic's action was this - we can't get out of the crisis having West as our enemy. Yet, they've all pledged to help us after the overthrow of Milosevic, on condition that we cooperate with Hague. We have no choice but to cooperate, and if we stall we risk giving them excuse to break their promises. They will make us do it one way or another, why do we have to do it the hardest way? It's like active and passive euthanasia Jari was speaking about.

    More on DS in my next post...

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 8:13 am
    Bogdan, whay are you using the term "dirty job of extradiction" ,instead of kidnapping ?? As far as I know extradiction is legal term which means legal cooperation between two countries ,to hand over the indictees.This was not the case with Milosevic.??!!

    Serjoe B
    Italy

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 8:32 am
    Sorry, Serjoe, I'm not a lawyer, so I didn't notice the difference (although I did say that Djindjic's action was illegal), but you're right, each word has it's weight on this site. Kidnapping it is.

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 10:03 am
    The official report on Srebrenica by the Bosnian Serb government could be of utmost importance in view of the upcoming proceedings on Bosnia. Never mind the obligatory trashing from all the usual suspects - the cat is out of the bag officially, and discussing the Srebrenica shell game with regard to the actual number of dead and their identification (as suggested by Jari in the respective postings) will no longer be confined to chatrooms. The Banja Luka report did a great service by rendering the issue a public record which the Western media can no longer ignore - and the timing is very fortunate for Milosevic. If he manages to prevent Carla from proving that the remains, unidetified for over 7 years are actually those of Muslims, that alone could undo the Bosnia indictment.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 10:25 am

    Legal cretinism at play: the prosecutor Mr. Nice (NATO) brings a military expert, a British General Sir Peter of the . . . (NATO) to testify on his report about the VJ based on the "evidence" presented to him by the prosecutor, namely the indictment!

    Judge Kwon (OCCUPIED) Q:"General if the indictment proves to be wrong, what will your conclusions then be?"

    Sir Peter (VERY NATO): "I will have to correct my conclussions then"

    Cretin Judge May (NATO) complains about wasting time? Why does he allows to waste a whole day and part of tomorrow on evidence based exclusively on the indictment?!

    Don't expect the roten venal press to explain. Any satirical newspapers around? we need them!

    It is all a farce and a colosal one!

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 11:20 am
    About Milosevic choosing Seselj as his party presidential candidate: What is wrong with this decision?? My interpretation is that his aim is now just to overthrow the government in Belgrade he considers as a puppet one. Seselj would have granted him a wider electorate from left to the right and thus a better chance to win. The same was done by the West in ww2 when they cooperated as allies with Stalin to fight against the common enemy-Hitler ?? As you compare the two situations the ideological difference was much higher. He is not playing political theatre now, but is fighting a "war" in Haag.

    Serjoe B
    Italy

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 2:17 pm
    Monday September 02, 2002 at 3:21 pm

    Kathryn, Although Free Republic is a right wing site, it was one of the original sites which saw thru the Kosovo debacle in real time. Go and check their archives at the time. Lokk at the format of the site where anyone can post articles from the press and anyone can criticise them and be published. It is one of the best sites on the net and it's discussion forum has been rock solid agaainst the attack on Yugoslavia. Anyone who has tried to justify it has been soundly trashed by the likes of 'kate22','Vooch 'and others. Even to the extent that it is suspected that some of the posters (e.g. Hoplite) are US paid counter propagandists. It was not coincidence that they were sued by Newsweek and the LA Times

    j r

    OK, more on the FreeRepublic Web-site:-

    1) No one argued, or indeed could argue, that they are not quick off the mark.

    2) No one faults their or some of their posters' zeal or willingness to thoroughly research anything that would reflect badly on Clinton and the Democrats.

    3) No one here I've seen thusfar, including me, says they are wrong in any substantial way on Yugoslavia.

    Nevertheless:-

    There is no doubt where they are coming from, and what their agenda is.

    There is no doubt that, as stated before, ideas that Milosevic and the old Yugoslavia entertained such as universal health-care and education are anathema to the FreeRepublic crowd:-

    " ... Therefore, we are working together to roll back decades of liberal/socialist public policy ... "; (from:- http://freerepublic.com/about.htm . The US, socialist!?! ;-)

    There is equally no doubt in my mind, as stated before, that had there been a Republican Administration, FreeRepublic would have been one of the first on the "Bomb Serbia to shreds" bandwagon; and moreover been just as zealous in their work to "confirm" media reports about Milosevic being the "2nd. Hitler", and the Serbs being "evil", as they probably are now about Hussein and any Iraqis that support him - because now their guys are in power.

    As far as "anyone" being able to "criticise them" (articles posted there), and "be published", here's a post made by someone I could very well come to blows with (depending on his size, and gun-ownership status ;-) on most things were we to meet face to face, a post made on the "Why is GU International suddenly attracting a horde of Right Wing wackos?? thread in the International folder of the Guardian Talk forums (fora? ;-):-

    " "But they (my note:- referring to some Gu. Talk contributors) furiously repress the one type of diversity that is most important: diversity of thought."

    That might be true for some posters (poster-handle), but for the most part they are just (expletive deleted) with ya IMO. And at least they don't ban you and me here like they do at DemocraticUndergound, or like they ban full-on lefties or questionable righties like me at FREEREPUBLIC (my capitalisation emphasis). Pretty diverse web site (my note:- the Gu. Talk forums) when alternatives are considered. "

    Independently of this, I have otherwise heard that FreeRepublic are very intolerant of views expressed that it does not like, and freely "boot" contributors. Of course, this isn't likely to happen with the "likes of us" talking about Yugoslavia, because that fits in with their anti-Clinton, anti-Democrat Party stance. It really does boil down to being as simple as the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    I have never tried as far as I remember to contribute there, though their's was the site where I first came across the John Laughland article lamenting Tony Blair's lack of sleep:-

    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3818c7645e0e.htm

    Fortuneately, this also appears in several other places, in this case in the political "science" folder of an American University:-

    http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/polisci/faculty/mc-kos5.htm

    Moreover, I believe that pretty much all Yugoslav information/opinion found on FreeRepublic is freely available elsewhere, in fact, apart from stumbling onto the Laughland article there, I, for one, have never used them.

    My point here has been to indicate to perhaps distant, and thus understandably possibly unaware, Yugoslavian readers, and others for that matter, the layers and machinations of US politics, and how things therewith are rarely as they seem; in particular how domestic hates and distrusts can, and often do, significantly distort US foreign policy views ... and can make for very strange bed-fellows indeed.

    That's not to say, of course, as Kathryn indicates, that FreeRepublic on Yugoslavia isn't may be a useful resource, or shouldn't be used (as said, I haven't needed to); nor that perhaps inevitably many Yugoslavs have "found some comfort there". Who the hell could blame them.

    But there is a much more serious danger in largely relying on, or rather, largely limiting oneself to making references to a web-site like FreeRepublic. This gives the excuse for the Western so-called left, the Ralph Naders, and Chomskys to point the accusatory finger at those such as Jared Israel who take what, in my view, are more well-read, and carefully researched views:- "I see your aligning yourself with those ultra-right wing nutters on FreeRepublic", and then terribly ironically, they make the "strange bedfellows/bad company" accusation themselves; whereas I believe I have already given the correct analysis of this.

    Nader, of course, said nary a word against the bombing of Kosovo.

    Chomsky did, but all the whilst apparently swallowing the NATO-fed Western mainstream media lines concerning "Milosevic the Hitler", and bad-boy Serbs. Here's an interesting exchange involving Jared Israel and Chomsky, among others, revealing that Chomski really does not like having his own contradictory positions pointed out to him, behaving in this exchange, in my opinion, like a spoiled schoolboy caught in a lie:-

    http://128.242.103.136/~resisftp/resistance/engram/chomsky.htm

    In this exchange, Israel wipes the floor with the surprisingly immature, though much-lauded, Chomsky.

    Notwithstanding all that, a similar and symmetrical danger must exist with over-reliance on, and referencing of web-sites that may be "extremely" left-wing. Basically, of course, as far as possible, you can't beat original sources, such as the Milosevic speech Israel refers to in the link given above.

    The West/NATO-serving obfuscation caused by the apparent confluence of left, "middle" and extreme rightist views on the FYRs (albeit the last only in the US) has been a wonder to behold; is extremely dangerous, and sad, as I believe it is so easy to explain.

    I don't think it's a particularly good comparison, but just right off the top of my head, I find the FreeRepublic-Milosevic-Serb "alliance" vaguely reminiscent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact!

    None of that is to say that FreeRepublic might not be a good jumping off point on the FYRs, to find other stuff from, just to say that quoting from it too much lays arguments open to side-lining and time-wasting obfuscating criticism.

    _____________________

    Indeed, Kathryn, Dennis Kucinich seems like a really good guy. I think he was on 'Donahue' (MSNBC) a while back, talking about Iraq. He was very sharp. MSNBC may maintain an archive somewhere in case you didn't see it; I know they do for the latest week's shows.

    _____________________

    Peter Taylor -

    Hmmm. Bolding the formatting symbols. (Clever sod! ie:- wish I'd thought of it ;-)

    _____________________

    Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 7:16 am

    " We have no choice but to cooperate, and if we stall we risk giving them excuse to break their promises. They will make us do it one way or another, why do we have to do it the hardest way? It's like active and passive euthanasia Jari was speaking about. ... "

    Bogdan Oparnica

    Bogdan, I believe "they" will always find excuses to break their promises. Western, primarily US "Aid" has been all the rage since WWII and excepting those countries bordering the Communist "menace", and that for obvious reasons, there is not one country I can think of that is now better of than then owing to said Western "aid". Africa? ha, ha. Latin America? ditto. Unless a World where more people die of hunger, thirst and preventable diseases than ever is somehow deemed to have been "aided"?

    It's very largely a fiction:-

    http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/
    free/chossudovsky/opening.htm

    ... and:-

    http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/
    free/chossudovsky/imf_interview.htm

    In reality "aid" is largely a euphemism for the bribes paid to corrupt (target) Government officials and "opposition" parties, money paid to enhance the work records and therefore future employment prospects of often largely useless "N"GO workers, and to "upgrade" or Westernise your media, aka turn it into distorted anodyne CNN-like pap (not necessarily to imply it might not have been already - just not pushing the Western view). Several former Latin American junta leaders retired comfortably now in Florida living off all the foreign "aid" so "kindly" provided to their countries are testament to this view.

    The best thing, albeit it a fantasy, given the apparently largely Quisling nature these days of the Belgrade Authorities, would be if the US does overextend itself and may be starts fighting for it's Weltanshauung on a couple of fronts or more, that the Yugo/Serb military simultaneously just roll all those tanks that NATO "destroyed" :-) right back into KosovO, this time not necessarily stopping at the Albanian border.

    ;-)

    Hey but I'm a pacifist, really. May be ... ;-)

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 2:47 pm
    Darn it, missed an     !

    ;-)

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 4:00 pm

    Noam Chomsky is above all a good American export. He had once a large European audience (even his linguistics) and he really gives the impression when his articles apear in European papers like Le Monde Diplomatique together with unknown American authors, that in the States there is a vivid, open dialogue of political opinions reflecting great tolerance and openess.

    Reality as seen from America is something else. Universities are symbols of conformism and not of criticism. Chomsky will never be mentioned (he used to be) in main stream papers like the New York Times or on main TV programs.

    America does not have the same respect for her national intellectuals which is found in Europe. The divide line between what is aceptable and what is not reflects on the depth of the criticism.

    It is a pity Europe follows the American model.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 4:56 pm
    Gogol: "It is a pity Europe follows the American model." Half seriously: Yugoslavia did not want to follow this model and was destroyed.!!

    Serjoe B
    Italy

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 5:33 pm
    Dennis, Not so clever :-) Not even approaching the ability to answer questions before they arrive. Not to see you misled the bolding was simply that. Because certain characters have special meaning in this HTML (or variant thereof) context they can only be printed by means of ‘escape codes’. It involves the ampersand symbol and may be viewed by Googling “HTML escape codes”.

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 7:56 pm
    Peter, oops. Yes indeed, not so simple at all, as I found out on my meaninglesslast post:-

    "Darn it, missed an !"

    which is not at all how I expected it to come out.

    ?May be? I meant missed an </I> ? ... or </I> ?Just a test.

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Wednesday September 04, 2002 at 7:59 pm
    Bingo!

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Thursday September 05, 2002 at 2:38 am
    What about the European reaction to the US plans to invade Iraq? The consensus is that the Europeans are pusillanomous (I always wanted to use that word). Let me shed light on this phenomenon the way I see it. Now that the US is the world's only superpower, everybody has to do what the US tells them to do. Everybody. But now that the contrasts between the different US administration is so stark, it is hard to know what to do. The Clinton administration slammed Austria for letting Heider's party to the government. I don't know what Clinton would have said Le Pen. Now the strange thing is that this admnistration, Bush's, is putting forward proposals that go even further than the European far right. Le Pen suggested that the immigrants (at least the illegal ones) must be thrown out of the country, but he didn't say that we should bomb the bastard, which is what Bush is now saying (or at least thinking).

    So the Americans can blame the Europeans, but let them take a look at themselves first. What happens if the Europeans now support the Iraqi campaign? How can we be so sure that the next administration will not bomb us? Sure, the last time it was the Serbs, but there may be among Europeans some kind of unio mystica, so that if one part suffers, the whole suffers, whether consciously or not.

    Now about this "winning the hearts and minds of the Muslims". Isn't that what the ICTY was about? It was part of Clinton's Middle Eastern policy, which the Israeli right at least considers a flop (and they are the ones that count). And who had to appease the Muslims? The Europeans. So there is another reason for the pusillanimity. Most people may not be conscious of the fact, but the signal the ICTY is sending is that you don't mess with the Muslims or else...And there are a lot of Muslims to mess around.

    That was back in Clinton's time. To rationalize their behaviour, the Europeans started drafting the ICC Statute. Now the US says it doesn't want it, and threatens any country who does. Yes, it is one thing for the Americans to wake up one morning to learn that they are bombing another country, but quite another to wake up to see that you are actually being bombed by the Americans (if you wake up at all).

    This is not to criticize the Americans and the Europeans. I am just thinking of 1001 reasons why the Americans should stop this comedy at The Hague.

    About Bush. He may be a dunce, but that doesn't make him a bad president. Jimmy Carter must have had the highest IQ of all the presidents and look at the mess he made. Some people have their talents unevenly distributed. But in my hunt for eggheads I would pin much of the present administration's failures on the security adviser Condoleezza Rice. In a continued war effort, it is not so much what happens but the fact that something happens. But of course, no-one expected it to get this convoluted. There have been rumours that Bush ordered the 9-11 attacks, where 3,000 Americans died. That is certainly unexpected behaviour from a man that had refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol because he didn't want it to hurt the Americans.

    Compare him to Clinton. Maybe too much has been made of his affairs, but even if they have been blown out of all proportions (according to European standards), his reign was evil. When he started the Kosovo bombing, I said that this guy is a sociopath. Did he want the bombing to take away the attention from him and Lewinsky? Not directly. That would be too callous even of him. But I think that his impeachment was the thing that made him behave as he did. All the other reasons for starting the bombing are too contrived for me. If you know how a person acts when he is accused, you can understand that it was Clinton's idea to indict Milosevic. Few things are so stressful as being on the dock, and this was Clinton's post-traumatic therapy: Make the others feel the same as you. That is another reason why this trial should stop. Not only because it was Clinton's therapy but also because it will make Milosevic's supporters to want to continue the chain reaction.

    So back to the defense. Let us suppose that the defense will be taken by Americans (I won't name names, because I think I have made my point). Would the Americans want to make the Kosovo indictment inadmissible by seeking a link with the Legality of Use of Force? After all, they were the ones using that force. But the strange thing is, and I have never managed to explain this to myself, the US isn't "accused" of the illegal use of force at the ICJ, because it doesn't recognize the ICJ's jurisdiction in this case. In other words, the case against it at the ICJ is inadmissible!

    How about Americans cross-examining other Americans when state secrets might be involved? Well, we are not after Nato or the Americans in this case. Once the testimony touches on the Americans' guilt, May will use that favourite word of his, "irrelevant". Then why have the American testimonies at all? Answer: we want to show that the prosecution is biased in its prosecution policy, and if the judges do not want to get dragged into the mess, they will have to admit it's true. It is Del Ponte's fault. If she answers that she got orders from the Americans, the judge will say "irrelevant". The Americans are not on the dock, which is Del Ponte's own choice (technically), which means that any link to the Americans is "irrelevant". What if Del Ponte does something unexpected, like indicting the Americans? She won't. I think Uncle Sam has enough information against her on other counts (maybe the terrorist bank accounts in Switzerland when she was the federal prosecutor). That would disqualify her in no time.

    So here you would have an example of the Americans turning against their friends. It would be pretty much a gang rape, but would you really feel sorry for the prosecution?

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Thursday September 05, 2002 at 8:29 am
    “Education, education, education”

    Blair’s rallying cry in coming to power in 97. Almost six years on as his social policies, including education, demonstrate failure we see Blair’s actual priority was War, War, War … Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq …

    Clinton may have been King but in Kosovo Blair was the power behind the throne. Clinton may have had his reasons for wanting a War but there was no way most of the Europeans would have gone along for the ride without Blair beating his now well worn War drum. His belligerent rhetoric belies his claim to “hate War”. Portraying ‘sincerity’ is Blair’s stock in trade unmasked by his massive lies about the Serbs. It was uniquely within Blair’s power to prevent this unjust attack upon the Serbs.

    When later challenged on this point he weakly replied, “What else could I do?”. Might he not have insisted that KLA terror attacks stop: might he not have stopped supporting terrorism: should this have to be explained to a self-styled anti terrorist warrior?

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Thursday September 05, 2002 at 12:14 pm

    Can the ICTY update the transcripts please?



    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Thursday September 05, 2002 at 4:14 pm
    Jari; The war in Kosovo was an extention of CIA backed destructin of the Balkans. The bombing had to begin because US surrogates,"the KLA" were losing. NATO did the same thing in Macedonia when government forces had Arab and CIA forces ready to surrender. NATO took them out in busses with thier guns and ammo, back to Kosovo so they could fight another day. Clinton was tied to Balkan policy from the 80's. I'm not so sure though that Ms. Albright wasn't a CIA plant in his administration.

    Prertti Lindroos
    Quesnel
    BC Canada

  • Thursday September 05, 2002 at 4:43 pm

    I must recomend reading NATO IN THE BALKANS: Voices of Oposition(ISBN 0-9656916-2-4)

    It shows the naked policy put in place by certain institutions and makes the politicians look like little pawns in a large theater stage, the jestters and buffons to keep us entertained and feeling good while in our name they carry on with their murderous alignments of the World.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Thursday September 05, 2002 at 5:17 pm
    The agent from the Yugoslav Secret Services who interviewed Marcovic (Head of the State Security) during his solitary confinement detention for over a year and half testified under subpenae today. He confirmed Mr. Milosevic's case when he cross-examined Marcovic back in July: there was no special order to hide any crimes.

    He also said he had been threaten and asked to change his testimony and Marcovices and the trial went in close session when Mr. Milosevic asked who threaten him.

    Earlier General Sir Peter de la Billiere (VERY NATO) ended his cross examination with almost every one asking him questions. He had to agree with Mr. Milosevic "he had been given a tail bone to reconstruct a dinosaur" or in other words based on the indictment and the fact the VJ is a modern dicisplined army its behaviour as described by the indictment could not have been any thing else than the result of policy.

    Very conveniently they forgot to say that it is very unlikely a modern well disciplined army to follow illegal and irregular orders on the scale described in the indictment. Here you have it: The allegations are true because the indictment is true and as Sir Peter de la Billiere (NATO CHAP) put if the endictment turns out to be false his conclusions on the VJ will also be false!

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Thursday September 05, 2002 at 5:24 pm
    Correction of the html

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Thursday September 05, 2002 at 7:31 pm
    The most shocking thing about the issue of the General using the indictment as the sole basis on which he arrived at his conclusions was the manner in which Mr May insisted that this observation was irrelevant to the trial chamber.

    At best he appears quite unable to grasp the obvious issue being raise. At worst, he seemed determined to bury this issue. Thankfully, Judge Kwon spoke up.

    Ian Davis
    waterloo
    Ontario, Canada

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 2:53 am
    As I have suggested, I can't vouch for the Freerepublic, because I don't know anything about them. I do know that this kind of chatrooms are good for brainstorming sessions, but to achieve anything, you need an organization. To me, it seems that there are two competing organizations in existence: the Freerepublic and the ICDSM. They can't stand each other. Or actually, what I now that the ICDSM people can't stand Freerepublic. Or actually, I don't know even that. I have heard from some people close to ICDSM that getting too close to Freerepublic is not a good idea. On the other hand, the Freerepublic people have been quite forthcoming on this forum.

    But as I said, I don't know anybody. I don't know even the ICDSM people, although I think their material is excellent. What puts me off in the ICDSM people is that they are too proud of their anti-establishment views, which makes them fight on too many fronts. Doesn't even the antagonism towards Freerepublic show that it may be the amount of fronts that they think count, even if cooperation would vastly benefit their main task, defense of Slobodan Milosevic? At least, it is certain that the two organizations can be effective without each other. But as I said, these things are beyond me.

    What I think people find annoying in the Freerepublic is not so much their political agenda, but the lack of inhibition with which it is put forward. In other words, many people might find the Freerepublic too American. And by "American" I mean the give-it-to-me-now attitude. Everything has to happen now. The British at least see the absurdity in this when they say that they want something yesterday. One of the things you notice when coming back to Europe from America is that things take time in Europe. But that is something you have to accept. There are too many Europeans and Americans on this planet to ignore each other. I would at least hope a little more of that "I-don't-like-what-Larry-Flint-does"-type of professionalism.

    Everything depends on what Milosevic wants. There has been much guesswork about any secret messages behind the suggested Seselj nomination. I guess there is only one way to find out what he meant. When one has a well-thought-out plan, they can ask him if that is what he wants. Don't let him do all the thinking. What I have gathered so far is that the Serbs wouldn't mind American help at all, and they would forgive Milosevic winning(!) this case. I am not so sure about Milosevic's foreign supporters, who seem to use Milosevic and the Serbs as jockeys in some kind of race, where the main thing is not who wins but who fights the best.

    Another thing. If the defense doesn't approach the Americans, someone else will. Have you read the New York-Srebrenica-sister city plan? A comment can be found at http://www.balkanpeace.org/press/prs14.shtml . Also, check the homepage of the National Albanian American Council. What first strikes you?

    The fight can be won, but it is not going to be easy. Everything will have to be OK'ed by Bush, and then it is important that someone looks after Milosevic's interests close enough to Bush's ear. Tony Blair, for instance, might say that Milosevic has to be convicted, or else he won't support the Iraqi campaign. Suppose that some of Bush die-hards says that Milosevic has to be acquitted. What would Bush say? He would say that Blair is a useful chap, but he is not American. When Bush has to choose between different political agendas, he will choose that closest to the Republican agenda.

    What if such an aboutface in the defense takes place? How would the prosecution react? My guess is that they wouldn't react at all. If they were able to react they would have surprised as with a new approach after the recess. Markovic testimony would have called for it. The only surprise has been that they were no surprises. The prosecution does what it has done earlier, only worse this time.

    You have to think of the famous Maginot Line. Once the prosecution has chosen one strategy, it cannot change it. They have more than 500 people on their payroll, who are not paid to think of fresh approaches but to do their part in their little niche. They are fat cats. They get paid whether the defendant loses or not. The only person who might change all this is Del Ponte, but she is just the type Bogdan said Kostunica is: too set in her ways. If there were a change in strategy, we would have heard from it by now, because it would mean a complete restructuring at the Office of the Prosecutor. The prosecution has some unbeatable advantages, like having a monopoly over the bodies in the killing fields. But even that advantage could be eliminated by an American defense with connections. And this is something Milosevic will not be able to do. We can see through the numbers game, but is there really enough proof?

    The about this defense based on lis pendens. Every defense would have its risks, because this is a test case in every respect. So far, when the ICTY's jurisdiction has collided with that of some other organ, ICTY has won. I must come back to the Naletilic case at the European Court of Human Rights: the fair trial at the ICTY couldn't be questioned, because the ICTY Statute guaranteed fair trial. As I have said, ECHR has a better idea of a fair trial than ICTY, because it at least evaluated the admissibility of the case, whereas ECHR doesn't. But perhaps more important is that by throwing Naletilic out as inadmissible, ECHR actually applied the lis pendens rule: once a case is pending at ICTY, it can't be taken up by ECHR. And here you see, how lax the link between the two cases can be to be able to justify the use of the lis pendens rule. ECHR cited Naletilic when it threw out Milosevic's plea for release. Fair trial is not what the Milosevic case at the ICTY is about. The Milosevic case is about war crimes and stuff like that. Still, ECHR argued (in my view) that since the Milosevic case presupposes fair trial rules, ECHR can't look even into the fair trial component, because it is too closely related to the trial at The Hague.

    So even if the outcome was deplorable, there is hope. Even if the Genocide case against Yugoslavia at ICJ has to do with genocide, whereas the Croatia indictment does not, we can argue that since individual criminal responsibility does not fall under the ICJ's jurisdiction any way but is presupposed in the case against Yugoslavia as a state, the Croatia indictment at the ICJ is inadmissible. You know, ECHR threw out an ICTY case, but ICTY must throw out an ICJ case. You can argue that ECHR is subject to ICTY, because the Council of Europe, of which ECHR is an organ, can be regarded as a regional organization in the sense of UN Charter. On the other hand, there is no question that ICJ takes precedence over such Mickey Mouse tribunals as the ICTY. And Americans are even above ICTY (and ICC which is a sort of consummation of this ICTY).

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 8:21 am
    Well, I do find myself at unease with the comments I've promised on DS. It would require much deeper analysis than I am able to perform to actually tell what is their value, are they a blind weapon of NATO, bunch of corrupt politicians or true reformists. If you take for example what does media of one country show as a clue what course it's government is taking, one thing is for sure, our media is non-America loving, far away from serving anything remotely justifying what NATO did to us or the Hague tribunal. You can often see on, for example, B92 channel, the documentaries disclosing the role of Western media in demonizing the Serbs. Of course, it could all be a game to hide their true agenda. But it looks like our media is more pro-European. When I mentioned Western aid, I was more thinking of other European countries, not America. Europe actually has interest in developing this region, as it is a link for them to the east, so they need it in a normal shape and stable. There were lot of calculations on how much the neighbouring and other European countries lost with sanctions towards Yugoslavia. I somehow believe that there were lots of European politicians who would have taken other attitude than the one they've taken in past years, were we not presented in such a bad light in media. What politicians care about most is popularity - if any of them would choose to support our side he would be targeted by opposition with the same mud that was used on us. It was too risky to support the side so obviously satanized, just as now it is too risky to support Sadam (yes, Europe is AGAINST intervention but not FOR Iraq, so it can continue dying it's slow death). Any investment that they could have made in our country would be considered 'help to the dictator regime'. I guess what DOS is trying to do is to improve image of the state abroad. Attract foreign capital. Show the world that we're building the same boring but peacefull society like the ones they have, that there are no major surprises to expect, so they can freely invest.

    However, lot of people see DOS and DS especially as a corrupt band, that not only not prosecute crime, but are in deal with Mafia. It seems that many of the previous SPS and JUL supporters who were involved in finantial scandals have just changed sides, and now are fiery supporters of DOS. Both DSS and DS have a lot of those. The main task of DOS from my opinion would be to establish normal independent law system, that will shake some fear into the bigger fishes involved in corruption and theft. However, grey economy on a lower level has been cut quite efficiently. A lot of small and medium sized firms that in Slobo's time couldn't care less about paying taxes and legal business conduct have quite changed their behaviour, everybody now is trying to behave by the rules. Standard didn't grow as DOS have promised it will, but I can't say that it has fallen, either. The worst thing in pre-5th of October period was that things were all of the time getting worse. Now, it seems that situation has stabilized. Banks are trying to repay to citizens what was stolen from them during SPS/SRS rule. The currency is stable. Prices have grown much and more or less leveled with the European ones, but salaries have grown as well. There is a lot of unemployment and a lot of people are having only fictive jobs in large state companies that are effectively ruined, but that's something that was inherited from the previous system. What people want to see is a change to the better. We couldn't possibly be satisfied with the things as they are now, because we are not used to have a standard of Albania.

    It scares me to hear predictions of us being treated as a third world countries. Yes, what you say about Western aid is true for Africa and Argentina. What about Hungary, Check Republic, Estonia etc.? They have gone through quite tough transition period and emerged as quite respectable states. Yes, you can probably say that we won't be allowed to do so. But then it doesn't matter who we elect, we'll be ruined anyway. I want to have faith in future of my people. Optimism is a thing we need most right now.

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 9:42 am
    A good start for optimism: Indianapolis: Yugoslavia - USA 81 : 78 Yugoslavia in semifinal, USA out !!!

    Serjoe B
    Italy

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 9:57 am
    Seroje, congrats! Check out the inset at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/
    news/2002/09/05/us_yugoslavia/?cnn=yes entitled "Yugoslavia's Other Victims". No doubt it was part of the vicious basketball winning campaign orchestrated by Milosevic.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 10:32 am

    CLICK HERE

    Asked to comment about a report released yesterday by the Republika Srpska Office for Cooperation with the ICTY suggesting that Bosnian Muslims had imagined or fabricated the Srebrenica massacre, Landale replied that he had not yet seen the report, however that he had seen the media reports as to the contents of the report. If they were accurate, he would only describe the report as being outrageous and said that it flew in the face of all of the painstaking investigation conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor into the events following the fall of the Srebrenica enclave in July 1995. He continued to say that it was also important to point out that, specifically, the Krstic Judgement stated that "the Trial Chamber is satisfied that, in July 1995, following the take-over of Srebrenica, Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men, the total number is likely to be within the range of 7,000 to 8,000 men". In addition, he mentioned that throughout the trial, General Krstic and his Defence team did not actually challenge the death toll as asserted by the Prosecution. * Asked whether the Tribunal could comment about a story published in Zeri about an Albanian woman who testified in the Milosevic case and who did not want to return back to Kosovo and had asked for asylum in the Netherlands, Landale replied that he would like the journalists to refer to a written response on behalf of the Registry and the Prosecution. He added that this was a very sensitive issue, which dealt with protected witnesses and as a result he could not make any further comments that might jeopardize their safety. * Asked for an indication on how long the Kosovo part of the Milosevic Trial would last and whether we could give some clarity about when the Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina part would start, Landale said that he could not be 100% sure, but said that the feeling was that the Kosovo part would end after a couple of days next week. If that were to be the case there would be a two week break before the beginning of Croatia and Bosnia, so we could be looking at around 26 September. Of course this could always change, he added. * Asked to comment about an article in the Montenegrin daily Dan, which allegedly published the identity of Witness K41, Landale replied that he could not comment. * Asked whether Joris could give any names of people testifying at the start of the Croatia part of the Milosevic trial since the Prosecution would start with the chain of command, Joris replied he could not disclose any names. * Asked if there was any information about whether Mr. Holbrooke would testify before the Tribunal, Joris replied that he had nothing new to say since last week. The same question was asked about Mr. Lilic to which Joris replied with the same answer.

    K41 is another fugitive of the Law, aparently this court, as a matter of fact this court is not bothered in the least to have common criminals as witness whether judges practicing brivery or defectors, deserters, thiefs etc.

    Guignols!

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 10:46 am

    The US Ambassy in Sarajevo is demanding the withdrawl of Republika Srpska Report on Srebrenica.

    No comment.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 11:48 am
    Bogdane, What about Hungary, Check Republic, Estonia, Poland etc. - We have not been in the same position (these countries did not had anything to lose and they could have made a progress with any effort), but Yugoslavia had some of the things that will not be achieved anywhere else in the near future, like: Education, universal health system and dental insurance. And pension plans too.

    We had a good education system and that system produced decent experts since we had variety of products and we developed economy that did not depend on other countries (that’s why Yugoslavia survived 10 years under sanctions and have probably a million of refugees and still there is no huge number of people dying of starvation - Any western country under these circumstances will have much more deaths caused by starvation). I would like to name few products from ex Yugoslavia that contributed to high quality education. (Market for these product were taken by West mainly US)

    Airplane (combat and training Jastreb, Galeb, Orao) Tank (Only eight countries on the world were able to do it - think about optical instruments, shook absorbers, quality of steel for caterpillar joints, technology processes to avoid combs in metal)

    Artillery

    Infantry arms

    Car industry - (Citroen - Koper, Reno - Novo Mesto, TAM - Maribor, FAP - Priboj, Volkswagen Sarajevo, Golf - Sarajevo, Opel - Kikinda, Gosa - Smedervska Palanka, Zastava - Kragujevac)

    EI ( Nis - Including radar systems, Rudi Cajevac - Banja luka)

    YUNA - Yugoslavian long distance oil pipeline (going from Krk to Romania and Hungary and further to Novorosijsk - many have not been aware of its existence)

    Projects at “Atomic institute Boris Kidric in Vinca” (Tito’s plan to make atomic bomb)

    The first kidney transplant in World in Rijeka

    Projects and undertakings at Sremska Kamenica and VMA - Belgrade

    Shipyards (All of them are dying now)

    Bogdane, then all people from ex Yugoslavia lost all of that including post war looting of all banks, all coal-mines, (gold, copper, zinc- mines etc.) all cement factories, construction companies (“Hidroelektra”, “Montmontaza”, “Mostogradnja”, “Energoinvest”), the biggest shipyards in Europe, the hugest refineries (DINA - Krk, Rijeka, Zagreb, Sisak, Slavonski Brod, Bosanski Brod, Modrica, Novi Sad, Pancevo, Podgorica), developed tourism, transit etc. (We lost 2 million people too. And as well over 50 000 highly educated) (To educate 50 000 engineers a country like Yugoslavia will need 50 years if it produces 1000 engineers every year.)

    Consequently - we will lose good education system also, since education will be tailored to suit economy’s needs. Poor income is not able to support health system, dental insurance and pension plans.

    And there is no aid from US (they have more homeless kids than the whole ex Yugoslavia inhabitants) Aid is just bribe, for them to maximize their profits.

    The policy of killing pride of Serbian people will not bring optimism. More likely: “Reliance only on your own forces” will do something.



    Pero Peric
    Canada

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 11:52 am
    I demand the expulsion of the US Embassy staff in Sarajevo.

    ;-)

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 12:53 pm
    Or, as the old joke popular in Latin America goes:-

    Q: "Why have there been no coups in the United States?"

    A: "Because there are no US Embassies there."

    No country or region will be self-dependent and economically well-off and secure unless and until it works out a way of kicking out these carnivorous parasites, without getting the doo bombed out of it in return.

    In the case of the FYRs, you could also add in analagy to the Q & A above:-

    Q: "Why has Germany never been Balkanised?"

    A: "Because there are no German Embassies there"

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 12:59 pm

    Except they aren't really jokes, are they?

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 1:35 pm
    "I demand the expulsion of the US Embassy staff in Sarajevo." - Dennis he US embassy in Sarajevo may expell itself soon after the start of the Iraqi war that surely will activate the Islamic sentiments in the Bosnian Protectorate.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 1:45 pm

    At the end of Thurday's session Mr. Reyneveld (NATISSIMO) could not finish the examination of the OTP Australian policeman which was scheduled to continue this morning. Unexplainned to the public the 9 AM opening of the court jumps to the video link K41 witness from Yugoslavia which is already all over the news, the ex-soldier who claims to have seen a massacre, participating under direct orders from "his sergeant, well lieutenant, well the sergeant, I don't know, well you Mr. Milosevic!"

    Any how what kind editing or changes are these were what ever the judge ruled in changing the witness order does not get reported?

    The tape is misleading because Mr. Milosevic makes, despite the interruptions of Mr. May (NATO) reference to what it has been said during the testimony but not shown at all in the tape, Mr. Milosevic talks about new evidence regarding his abduction from Belgrade, his stop at the American base in Tuzla escorted by the witness, the OTP employee, why has this been redacted?

    Don't we have the right to know?

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 2:00 pm
    Now we have K41, the "unidentified" witness, who testified by VIDEO LINK to the Hague war crimes tribunal from the Balkans, the FIRST (in 6 months)ex-soldier to admit that he killed people during Serbia's 1998-99 crackdown on Kosovo's Albanians." *To bad K41 had no plastic surgery, sex change and a new identity before going public via "satellite link". How do we know if he exists at all?! What's next? Elvis testifying via satellite from Mars? *"What I remember most vividly is how ... there was a baby and it had been shot with three bullets and it was screaming unbelievably loud," *Another well placed emotional pitch aiming at the dramatic crescendo of the testimony - worth the "Kuwaiti Incubator Baby" Award. We have seen it all before, have we not? Under 1 year old, shot three times and still screaming? One tough baby. Who writes these scripts? The prosecution has proved before that they won't shy away from any untoward practices to achieve their ends. * On a related note, as reported by the Dutch daily Trouw, February 21, 2000, during the Kosovo air war CNN employed military specialists in “psychological operations” (psyops) disguised as journalists. “Psyops personnel, soldiers and officers, have been working in CNN’s headquarters in Atlanta through our program Training With Industry, said major Thomas Collins of the U.S. Army Information Service.. “they worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news.” *The military personnel belonged to the Fourth Psychological Operations Group, stationed in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and charged with spreading “selected information.” CNN first attempted to deny the fact: “ I don’t believe that we would employ military personnel; it doesn’t seem like something we would normally do,” said CNN spokeswoman Megan Mahoney. “But when the U.S. Army Information Service confirmed the news, Mahoney said she would have to contact CNN’s senior officials.” Ultimately, there was no response.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 4:55 pm

    Mr. Milosevic said this K41 story is the same as given by another K . . . well before . It only changes in the geographical location, the village's name.

    K41, I was briefly able to see was cross-examined by Mr. Tapuskovic (amici curiae) K41 it was confirmmed is a fugitive of justice, that is the reason he couldn't apply for a passaport to travel to The Hague. It wasn't also very clear where he was, from where he was giving his "testimony" his false testimony. Mr. Nice had said Nis during yesterday session, today the ICTY web site says Banja Luka.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 5:02 pm

    I suspect OTP employee Kevin Curtis testimony was thrown out completly and that will explain the jump to K41 on this morning's session. If that is so, it should be reported.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 6:05 pm
    For the argument's sake let's assume that the dramatic story of the triple-shot baby is true. K41 and/or the prosecution clearly wanted it to be the emotional centerpiece of the testimony, "stealing the show" by taking the attention from the role of K41 hismelf. But K41 had to be at a very close proximity to the baby in question to observe that the child was shot three times. How close was he? Did he shoot the unfortunate minor himself? If yes, why did he do so contrary to the orders from the above to spare civilians? Did "Milosevic make him do" what he did? Did he hear Milosevic's voice in his head? Was he prosecuted in Yugoslavia for what he did? Is he available for further inquiries to corroborate his testimony? These are the questions worth going after, not taking everything K41 said at the face value after being emotionally softened by the triple shooting tale. Providing edited "testimonies" from mysterious locations with identities concealed, features obscured, and voiced altered and then vanish back to the woodwork just won't do any more.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Friday September 06, 2002 at 6:59 pm
    A suggestion to the Moderator or those it may concern at Jurist: how about breaking the archive down by months? The bulk method does not seem to work. Merci.

    Andre Andre
    U.S.

  • Saturday September 07, 2002 at 9:39 am
    Excellent idea. We'll implement a monthly archive structure as soon as possible. Thanks for the suggestion.

    JURIST Moderator

  • Saturday September 07, 2002 at 10:29 am
    JR As you know, FR has regular readers in the thousands. It is a conservative site and they prevail, because IMO most people basically are 'conservative', as also evidenced by the comments this forum draws.

    FR is set up to draw Media 'articles' nationally, posted by members and commented on by all.

    Problem is that 'tribunal' reporting by the media has been successfully stifled, except from the loony IWPR, BBC, NPR. And their reporting is so biased that it's not informative and doesn't appeal to any 'thinker'.

    It would be great if you 'international' tribunal watchers would post or at minimum 'bump' things along on FR.

    Here the live video starts at 3AM, the video archives are days late, and the transcripts are weeks late. Your appraisals of the goings on must be sent to the 'people', this forum can't handle the traffic the subject deserves.

    Another problem is that the defenders of the 'tribunal' fiasco have 'deserted' FR, so its like talking to yourself about nothing. Hope this makes sense.

    Joe P
    USA

  • Saturday September 07, 2002 at 12:39 pm
    AH

    I don't think he'll be avavailable. Milosevic, toward the end of the session, asked Judge May for a 'closed session' were he would prove K41 was lying. The judge complied and that was the end of the session for the day. I thought the session ran into the afternoon but it disappear at noon?

    I wonder what, if, Judge May will explain Monday. I'm starting to get the impression that Judges Quon and Robinson are getting embarassed at Judge May's antics. In broad daylight IMO, it appears the Judge for personnel and political gain is committing treason against justice. Reminds you of Judge Bean from the early American cowboy days.

    It's sad that comments in this forum can't be copied so that they could be reposted on FR or the NYT site.

    Joe P
    USA

  • Saturday September 07, 2002 at 2:23 pm
    I think this is a little unfair to Judge Roy Bean who, without legal knowledge, created an inadequte but not totally corrupt rule of "law west of the Pecos" where there was none before. Judge Richard May appears to have achieved the opposite in every respect.

    Neil Craig
    Uk

  • Saturday September 07, 2002 at 2:35 pm
    Joe P , An interesting aside. I was a FR poster for many years almost exclusively on the Kosovo affair (I have no association with the area).Normally I posted just on that subject and cared little for the political affiliations of thir members. It was the translucence of the site I enjoyed. Last week I posted some observations about the ridicculous warmongering going on in Iraq. Only one poster of many agreed with me (hed) and when I checked his site I found he had just been banned. Soon after I was banned. I re registered and said a little more against the simple minded demonisation of Iraq. I was banned again. It seems that Free Republic is denying any free speech that doesn't go in with the ridiculous Bush policy on iraq. By the way the US will not be allowed to attack, it is their >Suez in a strange kind of way. Still the Balkan comments are okay. But the site is becoming Orwellian. A previous poster here, mentioned some remarks on FR a few of days ago--He was mostly right and gave good analysis. Try it out --log in , say a few sensible words on the Iraq situation and you will be banned. Be blindly moronic and gung ho and nothing will happen. I think the owners are just using the sight as rabid pro war support and to hell with anyone who disagrees.apity because it's stykle of presentation is brilliant. JR

    j r
    Norway

  • Saturday September 07, 2002 at 3:39 pm
    What is the "FR?"

    How soon is the trial now expected to end? Is there any chance Robinson and/or Quon will vote against conviction?

    Lou Coatney
    Macomb
    IL USA

  • Saturday September 07, 2002 at 4:01 pm
    Lou

    Freerepublic.com

    Check out the forum. No personnel attacks against conservatives. Its free, just register.

    Joe P
    USA

  • Saturday September 07, 2002 at 4:44 pm

    The Trial Chamber has ruled the prosecution has to end presenting its case in April 2003: "You know Mr. Nice the accused has to defend himself . . ." presiding judge May (NATO) said once.

    The press reports wild predictions about the lenght of the trial, 2 to 3 years and Carla del Ponte the Chief Prosecutor expects to be re-appointed in 2003 so she can see the end of the trial, she said in a recent press conference.

    So far the most independent (also the most awake) judge of the troiska seems to be judge Kwon (OCCUPIED), at the beginning Robinson (COLONIAL) had asked some good questions soon becoming judge May's echo. Mr. Milosevic told him when he was expressing concerns about his health, that he believed he was an honest and good meaning man, unaware of the machinations and tricks of the prosecution.

    When critisized prosecutor Nice (NATO CHAP) feigns high offense.

    Normally, and what is normal about this circus, the case at least for Kosovo should have been thrown out already on several accounts.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Saturday September 07, 2002 at 6:57 pm
    The New York Times Interntional page has an article regarding the I.C.C and the USA. Maybe this is old news to the forum. I could not gain access to the forum for a few days. Anyway the article is dated September 6, 2002.

    I just wonder how the world can go along with the Kangaroo Court when they read articles such as this one.

    The USA has been saying they are concerned that with this court, the soldiers serving in the US military could be prosecuted when in fact privately they are saying that it is number ONE, i.e., Bush, Cheney, Kissinger, etc. they are concerned with.

    The following is cut and paste from the article because I could not really do this justice by attempting to summarize.

    Human rights groups argue that the administration's position is counterproductive. They say the international court, which has power to try actions occurring on or after July 1, 2002, has safeguards that would help protect American officials.

    “Under the current system of universal jurisdiction, a foreign country can prosecute an American accused of war crimes if he or she is caught in that country. But the new international court gives the country of the accused, not the country making the accusation, the right to hold the trial itself as a first preference. Accordingly, an American could be tried in an American court under the American system of justice.

    "If an American is ever brought before the I.C.C., Washington has the right to take that suspect, investigate and try the case themselves," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "That right doesn't exist in foreign national courts today."

    Mr. Roth said the greater fear was that the American opposition would undermine the court. "Justice isn't one set of rules for the world's only superpower and another set for the rest of the world.



    Kathryn Love
    SJC
    USA

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 12:56 am
    JR

    Just said a few words on an FR thread (key word-scott ridder) RE. Iraq. Although they're foaming for Saddam there are posts disagreeing with the 'plan'. I wouldn't be surprised if we're holding our cards tight and have something else in mind. Something that would give us a sense of 9/11 closure and forge on.

    Seems like we did a lot of talking with the Afgans before we went in Now the 'princes' are flying in and out weekly. Go figure.

    Joe P
    USA

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 1:38 am
    Saturday September 07, 2002 at 9:39 am

    Excellent idea. We'll implement a monthly archive structure as soon as possible. Thanks for the suggestion.

    Does this also mean that the frequently occurring and annoying " ... can't do something in 30 seconds ... " timeout message will now occur less frequently? This causes only part of the (Milosevic) page to load, without the "add comments" windows.

    I get this message as well as at least one previous poster who complained about it.

    BTW, can we get sexy coloured fonts as well?

    ;-)

    _________________

    Saturday September 07, 2002 at 10:29 am (Joe P)

    " ... It would be great if you 'international' tribunal watchers would post or at minimum 'bump' things along on FR. "

    No it wouldn't. That would just give the ultra-right wing howling Rottweiler owners of the web-site more credence, and better advertising:- " ... now more than ... gazillion subscribers ... ". They give, or ought to give, moderate conservatives a bad name; that is if there are many moderate conservatives left in the US.

    _________________

    " ... Another problem is that the defenders of the 'tribunal' fiasco have 'deserted' FR, so its like talking to yourself about nothing. Hope this makes sense. "

    Are you sure they deserted willingly? How would you know that they haven't been banned, as Jari explains? They are incredibly intolerant of anyone who doesn't fit in with their neo-fascist right-wing views, which inevitably involves allowing any and all criticism of the Democrats, in the case of the FYRs particularly of Clinton. Their "pro" Yugoslav stance is born entirely of their slavering hatred for Clinton (don't get me wrong, I think he's a war-criminal who should be in prison, preferably in the same cell as Madeleine Albright; that should be punishment enough, short of the death penalty).

    _________________

    Saturday September 07, 2002 at 12:39 pm (Joe P)

    " ... It's sad that comments in this forum can't be copied so that they could be reposted on FR or the NYT site. "

    That's interesting. Why can comments from this forum not be copied and reposted elsewhere? Jari has some fans (I'm one) who post mainly on the Guardian Talkboards ("Kosovo and the Balkans", "Should NATO intervene in Macedonia", etc). His and others' posts from here have made an appearance there with full attribution, so, what's the problem?

    Is that a rule of the Jurist forum? Moderator, have you any input here?

    Well, anyone who wishes to pay me the compliment of copying my posts or totally in-context extracts therefrom from here to elsewhere hereby has my full permission. We all know the mis-use that out-of-context quotations can be put to, so I would get miffed at that.

    NYT isn't too bad, is TurdCo still there?

    ;-)

    FR? Well, I think I've made my opinions of that tawdry bunch quite clear.

    _________________

    Saturday September 07, 2002 at 2:35 pm (Jari N.)

    " ... I was a FR poster for many years almost exclusively on the Kosovo affair ... . Normally I posted just on that subject and cared little for the political affiliations of thir members. ... . Last week I posted some observations about the ridicculous warmongering going on in Iraq. Only one poster of many agreed with me (hed) and when I checked his site I found he had just been banned. Soon after I was banned.

    Far be it from me to tell a most esteemed poster here that "I told you so". Nevertheless, I told you so!

    ;-)

    _________________

    " I re registered and said a little more against the simple minded demonisation of Iraq. I was banned again. "

    Yup. And try registering with a handle like 'ChimpMan', as I did the other day, just for fun. I couldn't get in! Whereas an equally or even more derogatory handle referring to a Democrat would give you no problems.

    _________________

    " ... But the site is becoming Orwellian. "

    No it isn't. 'Twas always so. It's just that you probably wouldn't have noticed restricting to posting on FYR issues, given your viewpoint; fitting in as well as it does (as does mine) with their rabid anti-Clinton stance; in their case, unlike ours, for reasons having nothing to do with Clinton's criminal actions against Yugoslavia.

    _________________

    " A previous poster here, mentioned some remarks on FR a few of days ago--He was mostly right and gave good analysis. "

    Well, that was my analysis; and I believe it to be completely right. Hey, may be that's a little immodesty coming out, considering the above is a compliment from the great Jari Nousainen! (no irony intended).

    _________________

    " Try it out --log in , say a few sensible words on the Iraq situation and you will be banned. Be blindly moronic and gung ho and nothing will happen. "

    "Blindly moronic and gung ho" is precisely where FR is coming from. That's why as I pointed out earlier, quoting too liberally from them on the FYRs all too easily lays your arguments open to obfuscating criticism, "shoot the messenger", so to speak. In the case of FR, that messenger really is one that deserves "shooting".

    _________________

    " I think the owners are just using the sight as rabid pro war support and to hell with anyone who disagrees.apity because it's stykle of presentation is brilliant. JR "

    Granted that their presentation is outstanding. There is no doubt they are very well funded. Glitz speaks volumes in the US.

    _________________

    Saturday September 07, 2002 at 6:57 pm (Kathryn Love)

    " ... Mr. Roth said the greater fear was that the American opposition would undermine the court. "Justice isn't one set of rules for the world's only superpower and another set for the rest of the world. "

    It makes me wonder if people in such high-ranking positions as Mr. Roth really are that naieve, or if it's just an act. The power structure of "Human Rights" Watch is more than revealing:-

    http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html (sorry I can't be bothered with the 'fancy' html stuff, but the title of this web-page is:- Who is behind Human Rights Watch?).

    Not to say they haven't got some great hard-working folks amongst their ranks. More viewers of the microcosm than the macrocosm though, I think:- "I's just an injuneer".

    ;-)

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 3:13 am
    Mr Charlemagne.There are two cases:one for Kosovo and one for Croatia and Bosnia. Prosecution insisted on one trial on the basis of"Greater Serbia" and they got it.Few days later they gave up because they copied the indictment from newspapers and Serbian enemies.That's my impression.

    Mr Nousiainen you are much better writer then Mrs Coultier is.

    I don't know much about USA.Would an open attack on USA produce more casualties? I think not.And once the killing succeeds, the killing would be over.

    How about the guilt of the President? Now that international law is reformulated in the garb of criminal law{it isn't, but never mind} wouldn't it be fair to say that he is at least guilty of attempt to produce WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and to use them?

    How about his involvement in al-Qaeda's activities? The terrorism is a structural phenomenon.(http:brzezinski in afganistan in tedturner's documentary says to talibans-you must fight for your religion.htm ) (http:photo from this trial-gen.clark, jackson,holbrook(?) with hasim tacqi.htm). The American world has been allowed to cut itself from the Islamic world. So a killing would cure at least some of that.

    But wouldn't the Americans get "angry" and would they be controllable? Anyway, the "anger" of the Americans is just another reason to hit USA.Jari the terrible.

    But,why war?Answer:why not?

    Oto von Brecht
    Germany

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 1:52 pm
    Vice President Cheney, in an interview on CNN, gave three reasons why America must go to war against Iraq. First he said that Saddam is putting together a team of experts to produce a nuclear weapon. America wake up! Every senior high school physics student has this knowledge. Secondly he said that Saddam is trying to acquire a design for a nuclear weapon. WOW! Open a grade 12 physics book Mr. Cheney, the design is there. Third point that Cheney made dealt with acquisition of material to build a centrifuge in order to produce enriched uranium that is needed for the bomb. He supported this point with innuendo, comments like Saddam is evil, look at his record and outright lies. This administration’s foreign policy is based on lies and self interest. The American people have lost any moral right to lecture others. US government is no different than those that you vilify and in fact many of its policies are worse. >P< United States has signed agreement with Bulgaria and Romania on immunity for their troops from ICT if they should commit war crimes. At present they are brow beating members of the EU (European Union) to break ranks on this issue. My understanding is that Italy. Turkey and Spain may break rank and sign an exemption for American citizens. The old diplomacy of “speak softly and carry a big stick” seems to be intimidating many nations. As for Blair I have nothing but contempt for that man, if I can call him a man. Whenever I see this person the more the image of Peter’s contempt for him is visible. He is a man without principle, DUMB FOLLOWING DUMBER, skipping behind Bush like a little puppy and like a marionette parroting Bush’s rhetoric. >P< The media campaign is on to sell the Iraq policy just as it was on to sell the hit Yugoslavia policy. Anti Yugoslav media campaign is still on and it extends even to Basketball. The defeat of US by Yugoslavia was not mentioned in the press or on TV in British Columbia. I saw it once on the scroll on one of the networks. The National Post had no mention of the game while other sports pages devoted ninety percent of the article to the Argentinean defeat of the US which was one week old.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops
    BC Canada

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 2:44 pm
    Spot on Walter.

    May be you should be pleased to see little mention of the Yugo/US basketball - what would the headling be:-

    "More Yugoslav Slaughter"?

    ;-)

    BTW, you appear to be getting the angle brackets the wrong way round when trying to create new paragraphs; should be:- <P>

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 2:47 pm


    D. R.
    US

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 3:09 pm

    CLICKand see action in the South America "backyard" and HERE for the rest of the yard . . .

    If Napolen called England a "nation of shop-keepers" what would have him called today's USA?

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 3:10 pm
    Correction of htlm.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 3:33 pm
    WT

    We are talking about a new administration, not Bill and Pete, lets take it from there.

    There are the 'quick' gains in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have dispersed Islamizes and are putting the squeeze on their 'mentality'. In Pakistan, IMO we have neutralized a probable WMD terrorist proliferate. In short order, we're in a position to 'worm' into their networks and religious beligerence toward India and neutralize the area. Any nuclear war would be a disaster for the world. Quite an achievement I'd say.

    Although I thought Saud should have gone down first. It's my present view the Islamists 'terrorists cell' network in 60 odd countries will have to eliminated. With or without their consent. If deemed, by the best man we could elect, that the next incision be made in Iraq, that would and justified.

    As for the Media, I agree. Milosevic has the same or similiar problem. His started with 'bad press' and is now in the 'no press' phase. The 'team' has only suffered 'no press'. What bothers me in both cases is that Talk Radio doesn't jump in for balance.

    Joe P
    USA

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 5:08 pm
    Dennis, Peter had . trained me how to break my contribution into paragraphs , but after reading your comments on italics, bold, underline I became confused. I will learn from this. Thank you. Presently I am watching Argentina playing Yugo and the commentary is great. Too bad the world media can’t be as fair.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops
    Canada

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 6:36 pm
    Mr Trkla

    The National Post links to Canada.com for its sports coverage. I had no problem finding a report on the Yu v USA game there

    http://www.canada.com/sports/
    basketball/story.html?id=
    {D1A89C1A-F57A-47D5-B298-E890EB0B4CD3}

    Or for a multitude web coverage see google

    http://news.google.com/news?q=Basketball
    +USA+AND+Yugoslavia&num=50&hl=en&lr
    =lang_en&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&sa=G&scoring=d

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 7:17 pm
    Watching the network news (was it Sat. or Fri.) night the sports anchors cried in anguish that Yugoslaviaaaaa beat the USA. It was kind of like Banana Republic beat USA. Walter I think the game was televised here. I am not a sports fan so I dot watch any games. I am pretty sure it was televised.

    I guess the Serbs are pleased when 20,000 celebrated in the streets of Belgrade.I bet all the youngsters in the USA will be training to play International Basketball from now on. I am sure that it was noticed that the USA lost and we do not like to lose.

    Congratulations to both Serbs and Argentina. Argentina has been having their problems too.

    Back to the right. The following is a gem of a remark by one of them. On immigration, Fred Barnes says, “it is good for the country because when they immigrate to this country they join the volunteer army.” The hawks have never spent any time in the military, they all avoided Vietnam. They like to say that Franklin D. Roosevelt never served. They try to forget he had good reason. He had polio and was in a wheelchair most of the time. The best of them were not good enough to polish his shoes.Not one single one.

    Kathryn Love
    SJC
    USA

  • Sunday September 08, 2002 at 11:25 pm
    Yugoslavia won the gold in basketball. The Kosovo forum on the Serbian Unity Congress has been hacked again. Retaliating for the win.

    Kathryn Love
    SJC
    USA

  • Monday September 09, 2002 at 12:38 am
    RE: ICC

    If the ICC is a “slippery slope” for the U.S., it is so for the rest of the countries as well. The latest extortionist move by the U.S. to ensure immunity for its military personnel was the last straw in the blatant attempt to legitimize a special law for the master nation, as opposed to the commoner states. The grandstanding of a “sole superpower” betrays its vulnerability and insecurity in the face of the world opinion. If the U.S. does not want its citizens be subject to “frivolous or politically motivated prosecution”, then it should not champion the same indignity for the Serbs and Rwandans of the world.

    The puzzlement and rage in the diplomatic circles worldwide is quite understandable, and the absurdity of the humiliating situation renders the very idea of the ICC useless and obsolete. The states that already signed or ratified the treaty ought to promptly “unsign” it as well. The rules should apply either to all or to none.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Monday September 09, 2002 at 5:54 am
    How the defense will be worked out, if at all, cannot be controlled by this discussion. Yet, this discussion is not useless. We know that the prosecution relies on quantity rather than quality. It has come up with "more than 60" charges against Milosevic. Formerly, that meant 66 charges, today I am not sure. Maybe it means 61. What we can do is come up with "more than 60" arguments in favour of the defense. And quality counts too. Holbrooke said that any of the 66 charges was enough to put Milosevic in jail for life. If so, why do you need the other 65 charges? Any single charge is enough if it hits, which it doesn't. It is like saying that any single canon in the Maginot Line was enough to kill the whol German army, provided it marched exactly along the line of fire. There is no depth in the prosecution's arguments. The canons, the "more than 60" charges can have any effect at all only horizontally. Once the enemy passes the frontline, it is doomed. And the defense can eliminate the charges by the simple trick of showing that the chain of command didn't reach Milosevic.

    What the defense has to do is to create depth. The chain is as weak as its weakest link. And if one takes a look at the "chain of command" from the political decision-makers through persecution to the judges, every link is vulnerable.

    Also, the defense can beat the psosecution's argument by reconstructing the chain of command from Milosevic downwards, the way the prosecution would have needed it to work. Interesting questions then emerge: why isn't Pavkovic indicted (as Gogol pointed out)?

    At this point, the defense can adopt a more systematic approach. When attacking the "chain of command" from the political decision-making in Nato capitals down to May, every link is vulnerable. General principles of law are violated at every step. I have used Dr Bin Cheng's book on the General Principles of Law to comb through the faulty reasonings. There are plenty of other books you can use. We can easily come up with 66 arguments in favour of the defense.

    The tribunal has made a decision on its own that it has been set up legally by the Security Council. As far as I know, no other organ has been consulted. It is therefore not surprising that the ICTY concluded that it has been set up legally. There are two principles at stake. No-one should be a judge in his own case (Nemo judex debet esse in sua propria cause). The judges have to bend this rule a beat, and then you speak of compétence de la compétence. The court of law has to decide for itself if it has jurisdiction. There is no way around it, except in this case there was...The question was not purely of its competence but its legality as a whole. So it could have asked an opinion from the International Court of Justice, which it didn't as far as I know. Only another UN organ can ask such an opinion. Why didn't the ICTY? Didn't it know there was such a possibility, in which case it violated the principle jura novit curia (the court knows the laws)? Or didn't it want to do it, because it knew that the ICJ could give a negative opinion, in which case the ICTY acted in bad faith, which is a violation of the principle of good faith? More in particular, there might be a violation of the principle nullus commodum capere de sua propria injuria (no-one should benefit from his own unlawfulness). In this case, this means that the tribunal is a place to whitewash its masters' wrongdoings, which has been demonstrated e.g. by the allegation that Milosevic didn't empty a prison during the bombing. And this takes us back to the question of lis pendens.

    Why should there be a link between the ICTY and ICJ? The reason is that one of the sources of international law, mentioned in Art. 38 I (c) of the ICJ Statute, is general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. If the ICTY violates these principles, this provision becomes a dead letter. Second, the ICTY portrays itself as the tribunal set up by "civilized nations" to condemn barbarism. It acts in contradiction to its policy if it violates the principles. Third, there are now more than one judicial organ in the UN, and their case law has to be harmonized. The EU has found a solution to a comparable problem by creating a possibility and a duty for the national courts to pose prejudicial questions to the European Court of Justice. And this might work in the UN as well.

    Therefore, it would be worth considering that the defense asks the tribunal to ask the ICJ for an opinion on the above questions - and others. This could be then fulfil the same function as the defense's witnesses, including experts. Formally, it would be part of the written depositions, but contrary to other depositions, it would be given wide publicity. The judges can deny such a move, and probably will, but that is an interesting decision in itself.

    Judge May reminds of the cartoon figure that runs off the cliff and keeps on running, without noticing that he has been airborne for quite a while. The difference is that the cartoon figures invariably fall, while May denies all laws that might bind him, including the law of gravity.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Monday September 09, 2002 at 11:58 am
    Monday September 09, 2002 at 5:54 am (Jari N.)

    " ... In this case, this means that the tribunal is a place to whitewash its masters' wrongdoings, which has been demonstrated e.g. by the allegation that Milosevic didn't empty a prison during the bombing. ... "

    Yes, it was just so bad of Milosevic not to have had a second identical empty prison next to the full one, so that the inmates could be transferred there in case NATO bombed the first one.

    ;-)

    I'm sure some ?civilised? arrangement could have been arrived at between the parties, as to time/date of the bombing, and that NATO promises not to bomb the duplicate. ...

    ;-)

    ' This also raises the point in my mind, that if, as has been said, NATO bombed the prison to allow escape, and that appeared to be proceeding partly successfully, with Albanian extremists making the effort to escape, and, of course, with the Yugoslavs not actually having a duplicate prison "next door", would actually shooting those that one party might consider to be dangerous extremists, and therefore a danger to public safety, as opposed to just letting them go, really constitute a war-crime?

    What happens to prisoners attempting escape from high-security facilities in the US? What would happen if a break-out were attempted by Guantanamo Bay inmates?

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Monday September 09, 2002 at 12:13 pm

    Guantanamo concentration camp bombed by an unknown airforce for three days while the inmates deployed white hospital sheets forming the words "HELP"and "S.O.S"on the roof of their cages?

    But, of course the inmates will be given food, cigarattes, blankets and put in 11 or buses and taken to Havana for the remaining of their sentences. It is logical. Is itn't?

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Monday September 09, 2002 at 12:23 pm
    Monday September 09, 2002 at 12:13 pm (Gogol)

    ;-)

    Well, I know at least one person gets my point ...

    ;-)

    D. R.
    US

  • Monday September 09, 2002 at 1:56 pm
    Holbrooke is right any 1 out of 65 charges would be enough to imprison Milosevic for life. However there are requirements ; (1) That he actually be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt (I am confident that can't honestly happen) & (2) That the court be impartial enough that if their is evidence for 65 charges against Holbrooke, Clinton, Blair, Kohl, Izetbegovic et al they be tried & if guilty imprisoned for life (I am confident an honest court would convict more than once).

    Neil Craig
    Uk

  • Monday September 09, 2002 at 5:54 pm
    “A Towering Day in History” Celebrates destruction of WTC
    Title of Islamic Internet publicity for London conference by al-Muhajiroun.

    It is a great and telling irony that in the week that the ICTY closes the Milosevic prosecution case on Kosovo, that simultaneously the USA and to a lesser extent Britain mourn victims of Islamic terror in the Twin Towers, that simultaneously supporters of the perpetrators of the twin horrors of Kosovo and the WTC - Islamic terrorists - should put two fingers up, and be allowed to, in Blair’s capital city.

    As the Kosovo part of the prosecution’s case against Milosevic draws to a close Blair’s sabre rattling continues apace. While Blair pledges to “Pay the blood price” in Iraq - not of course any of his own blood - he has the gall to quote the example of Kosovo. Here too he claimed “Inaction not an option”. Here he proudly boasts of being the initiator of Nato’s action against the Serbs, which he claims solved the “dreadful problems” of Kosovo. His ridiculous misrepresentation cemented by an abject media, principally the BBC, does not disclose his support for Islamic terror creating “dreadful problems” in Kosovo before the bombing. Nor does it disclose the “dreadful problems” of ethnic cleansing and murder on a massive scale of the ethnic minorities in Kosovo since Nato’s invasion. The ongoing terror waged on the remaining minorities goes largely unreported, as do incursions into Southern Serbia and Macedonia where murderous attacks, killings and hostage taking are a regular occurrence: Several attacks, murders and hostage takings during the last month alone. One day the British people will learn of the dreadful consequences of Blair’s illegal and immoral intervention. Of “The blood price” paid by the Serbs and many innocent Albanians for Blair’s covert and post-war overt support for Islamic terror in Kosovo and for his high altitude dumb cluster bombs et cetera.

    The case against Milosevic that Serbs forces lacked ‘proportionality’, relative to Anglo/US forces actions, in fighting Islamic terror - in its own sovereign territory - has been destroyed by example in Afghanistan. Here confined and rioting POWs were shot and bombed like sitting ducks by Anglo/US forces and their Northern Alliance allies. Hundreds were later murdered being sealed in containers and left to die in baking heat. Careless bombing killed hundreds if not thousands of civilians. We may next see Anglo/US ‘proportionality’ in action in Iraq. Proportionate to what? As the bullies used to explain having given you a gratuitous whack in the school playground “That’s for nothing now be careful”.

    War is in some cases a just and inevitable option. Something clearly should be done about any State that might hand out nuclear explosive devices or chemical and biological weapon products to suicide bombers like those who attacked the WTC. However remember that these were almost exclusively Saudis trained in Afghanistan, Britain, Germany and the USA. Also terrorists in Islamic States, which are hosts to al Qaeda and Mujahedeen, such as Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo are just as likely to covertly attack the West as is Iraq. The initiation of a just war according to Christian values requires the exhaustion of all other means of conflict resolution. Before rushing off to destroy Iraq and risk everybody else’s blood except his own Blair should be careful to explore these possibilities. Tighter international control and monitoring of fissile material would be a more reasonable response to the nuclear danger in view of the fact that Iraq is not the only source of that danger. What is the urgency and fuss about neighbouring states being in danger of Saddam Hussein’s actual and less dangerous chemical and biological weapons and their primitive means of delivery now: when it is notable that just a decade or so ago, when Iraq actually attacked Iran with WDMs, the British and US governments did not consider it necessary to take any action but actually supported him and supplied him with weapons!

    The Labour Party of Britain and the BBC will pay a heavy future price for the massive dishonesty over Kosovo and Serbia. The massive misrepresentation of the situation before Nato’s bombing when Islamic terrorists were supported: The abject silence of the media since Nato’s invasion while Islamic terror has ethnically cleansed some 200,000 and murdered thousands of the minorities, with Nato looking on. These facts cannot be hidden for long. Historians of integrity - that alone prevail - will record a factual account. History will reveal the truth about Blair and those who supported him.

    In Blair’s Britain, as Kosovo continues its descent into evil, unbelievably extremist Muslim clerics are allowed to meet in London this Wednesday 11 September to celebrate the anniversary of al-Qaeda’s destruction of the WTC? These Islamic extremists will also launch the Islamic Council of Britain with the intention of implementing an Islamic State in Britain including sharia law! This is taking tolerance to absurdity. It seems that the Koran loving Blair is intent on destroying parts of Britain in the same way as he has destroyed Kosovo. These extremists will step up their campaign in the recently heavily Islamic populated northern provinces. Eventually violent demands will be made as in Kosovo. To be consistent Blair will have hand over this territory to its majority Islamic population as in Kosovo and thus to the nascent International Islamic State! There are now more than 800 Mosques in Britain and a good few potential and actual terrorists proved to be associated with them.

    The cause of International justice has been damaged by the antics of the ICTY. Kidnapping suspects, bribery of governments, torture and suborning of witnesses, the presentation of a string of manifestly biased and dishonest witnesses. The chief prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, was challenged earlier in the year on the partiality of the Court in not indicting the KLA leadership for the many crimes carried out by the KLA. She promised indictments later in the year. The Prosecution’s Kosovo case on Milosevic has concluded. It is now later in the year. There are no indictments of KLA leaders?

    Comments on two myths: Nothing to do with oil! Oil pipelines are now being built in Macedonia and Kosovo? The Dictator Milosevic was voted out of power.

    Serbia needs to exorcise the ‘Truck in the Danube’ affair that preceded the kidnapping of Milosevic and his subsequent ransom to The Hague for a massive payment, in the order of billions. For some enlightened comment on this and other problems caused by the Nato/KLA alliance in Kosovo and Serbia the following URL address may be of interest:

    http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/text.html

    Click here

    An ode on Nato’s ICTY Kosovo case:

    Twas sillig and some slimy coves Did liar and wimble in The Hague All flimsy were the legal robes And the media hacks outrage

    In a word: Nonsense. Apologies to the late Rev. Dodgson.

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Monday September 09, 2002 at 6:11 pm
    No:Click here

    In intended form:

    Twas sillig and some slimy coves
    Did liar and wimble in The Hague
    All flimsy were the legal robes
    And the media hacks outrage

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 1:40 am
    Nice one Peter--try and do the whole poem.

    j r
    norway

  • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 3:12 am
    No-one ever suggested that if the "rightists" and the "leftists" join their forces in this battle, they should stop calling each other "nutters" and sleep with each other. To paraphrase the central idea of Milosevic's Kosovo Polje speech: in diversity is our strength. The idea is that your beliefs should stay intact - more or less - because in diversity is our strength. If you want to opt out, do so, which is what you have always done anyway. I am just not convinced that if you are not allowed to register as a chimpanzee at the FR site, that makes them neo-Nazis.

    In diversity is our strength in a very concrete manner. When I came back to this forum after a couple of days, I noticed that I hadn't read all the messages, because some of them had already been taken to the archives. That's how prolific we are. And that is another point worth noting. As the great Georg Schwarzenberger noted (no irony intended), now that we don't have secret treaties, we strive for secrecy in more subtle ways, like flooding the public with all kinds of communiqués. This is what the tribunal does. It floods the defendant with thousands of pages full of so-called information. We can do the same. We can put forward proposals and argue with each other and take the material to other forums etc. It gets harder and harder for the prosecution to anticipate the line of defense Milosevic is preparing. There is too much information, and some of it is contradictory. This can be a very useful smokescreen. Whereas the defense can pick up only one strand of thought, the prosecution has to consider them all. Being "interested with infinite passion" (in Kierkegaard's words), we can still communicate with each other meaningfully through this "indirect reporting", which to outsiders seems garbled.

    And I would go as far as to say that in weakness is our strength (in apostle's Paul's words). In principle, we could be in the same room without knowing it. We are only communicating with each other's personae. Compared to the Office of the Prosecutor, we are completely amorphous which makes it (almost) impossible to keep track of us. Just like the whole Balkans adventure has been decentralized, so that no-one can turn its direction alone, so are we. The bottleneck is of course the communication with the defendant, but even there the noose allows for some information to get through without the prosecution knowing.

    This should give us some perspective. As the Chinese strategist Sun-Tzu said, if you know yourself as well as your enemy, you will win every battle.

    May is a big problem. Unfortunately he is not the only one. Now that we have the "individual criminal responsility" of almost every Serb notable piled up on each other like a wedding cake, it is hard to know what to make of the res judicata rule, which means that once a case has been ruled upon, it cannot be ruled on again. Where does one case end and another begin? Take Krstic. The judgment says he is responsible for the killing of "thousands" of Bosnian Muslims and gives us the figure of 7,000-8,000. What happens if Milosevic shows that the figure is 2,000? Does the res judicata mean that the figure is still 7,000-8,000? Or does the new evidence mean that the Krstic judgment cannot stand, in which case a sort of domino theory would have to be considered: the mistakes made in one case brings down the whole ICTY case law? In normal criminal law, you really have individual criminal responsibility, whereas the ICTY only says it is interested in individual criminal responsibility but in actual practice just piles cases on the former case law, which has "proved" the requisite facts.

    May is not necessarily an evil man. He is just incompetent. The ICDSM has made a point of Markovic's account of torture and the judges' non-existent response to it. In textbooks you don't have cases like that. The textbooks says that if the judge notices he is in danger of conflict of interests etc., he should step down. The textbooks say that the court examines the admissibility ex officio? No-one seems to have considered the possibility that this doesn't happen! Therefore, there seems to be no answer to the question what happens if the judge acts like May.

    I think that one has to grab him by his character. Art. 13 of the ICTY Statute says: "The... judges shall be persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices." Which one of these qualifications does May have? The "high moral character" is so important because the judge is supposed to be autonomous and therefore self-critical.

    Art. 2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice has about the same wording with the "high moral character" and so on. Again, to get things into perspective, might May be appointed to the ICJ? The ICJ judges have written books! I can't imagine May writing books (maybe he has, I don't know). If and when he writes his memoirs on the Milosevic trial (which may be pretty soon after the trial, as he finds nothing else to do), there might be a "carrying theme" in his book (i.e. Milosevic is a bastard) but nothing else. I guess his text would be as deep as the Moody Blues lyrics "I'm a melacholy man, that's what I am". I am not saying that he can't have some success in writing comic books.

    Of course there are things in the court room that have to be ruled "irrelevant". However, the presiding judge uses this to rule out anything that isn't in keeping with his review of the prima facie case. It is my understanding that the review of the prima facie case can and should include the review of the admissibility of the case, but of course, this hasn't happened.

    I could go on citing Bin Cheng's book on General Principles of Law, but what's the point? You have things like the prohibition of collusion of witnesses. By now, the collusion of witnesses has become like our daily bread. Bin Cheng has fine rules like allegans contraria non est audiendus (he who alleges contrary things must not be heard). If you applied this rule, what would be left of the case? The Nato countries used Milosevic as a peacemaker, and now they say (as does the prosecution) that he is a warmonger, who lost all three wars. Lost! By making peace? Only, his loss wasn't certain until he was transferred to The Hague. Until then, the victory of the victors wasn't certain either. That is why the nullus commodum capere should play a role: someone benefited from his own unlawfulness. But the allegans contraria applications wouldn't stop there. Why was one Serb convicted of using cluster bombs (I can't remember the name of the case: Martic?), while Nato later used them as well and now basically blame the Serbs for not taking enough precautions to avoid the casualties? This allegans contraria rule is a category of the principle of good faith. Do I even need to point it out?

    So no-one should feel bad about crushing the prosecution. Here the old wisdom applies: offensive is the best defense. Why? The reason is that planning an offensive makes you prepare a coherent and consistent plan, whereas being on the defensive only allows you to respond to the attacks of the enemy without leading to any consistency in itself.

    Here you can see that the prosecution is already on the defensive. Their case is a sort of pendant of what Milosevic says but when considered separately, is like the famous "tale told by an idiot".

    The prosecution has been on the defensive from the very start. What are the 66 charges but a "fishing" expedition? If this one fails, this will one work...Since the charges relied on one common presupposition (chain of command), the prosecution was on the defensive before anyone even knew it.

    There is one thing we can learn of the prosecution's failings: Check your sources! Does the defense want its "Ratomir Tanic" and "Rade Markovic"? The concrete question I have in mind is the Lettuck (or something) article on trapping Milosevic. What if that is a red herring? Suppose the defense calls Mr Lettuck, and he says that the article was a joke, Mr Milosevic. And the defense loses its first point. The defense has thought too defensively: in terms of the affirmative defense "entrapment". Therefore it is very important to reconstruct the events that led to the Kosovo bombing in a (psychologically) responsible manner. That is why it good to think of Clinton's and Blair's responsibility, even if it is "irrelevant" from the viewpoint of the judges (and the prosecution).

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 6:13 am
    Joe P, why did "You" give nuclear weapon to Pakistan and support radical Islamists?I'm very curious about that kind of prevention.Don't be angry on Saudis ,they are still good partners of "Yours".I can understand that Mrs Coultier reads only her own books just like "You" can sell a lot of arms in war.But,I can't understand that you ,Joe P, want to live in an airbox on the Moon.

    Monday Sept 9 -Mr Nice isn't a Luddite!Sleepy Mr May: "What is the relevance..." -he was washed with cold water again.Amusing day.

    Mr Taylor.They fell from genocide to disproportion.NATO agression on FRY is the example of disproportionality:attacking whole country, destroying Milosevic's bridges,trains,factories,schools.Yugoslavia didn't get a penni for extradition.It's a message for the others:"We can buy everyone and everyone can be bought.Be good and creep."

    In diversity is our strength.

    Oto von Brecht
    Germany

  • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 6:34 am
    Moderator, please do something about that archive, if I miss couple of days of reading, I can't reach those posts any more, since I can't view the archive. Can it be converted to some .txt or other type of document that can be downloaded? I think the chopping of the file into smaller pieces is a good idea as well.

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 9:24 am
    Oto

    I don't think we 'gave'nuclear weapons to France,Russia,Israel, China, India or Pakistan. But on the Balkan point, from what I know, I agree, we supported the wrong side.

    Ann Coulter, beautiful woman, take a peek, on cable TV (Hannity), made the point again that we have no 'businness' in the Balkans. The 'tribunal' should shudder if she writes a book about their 'shenanigans'.

    Pat Buchanan, candidate in our last presidential election, also was against any Balkan involvement.

    Both are high profile communicators to the 'masses'and there are others that in the 'wings'.

    They fell from 'genocide to disproportional', very good! Mine if I pass on the phraseology?

    Joe P
    USA

  • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 9:52 am
    Jari, the guy behind the entrapment theory is Former Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck.

    Apart from making the fateful admission, he was also instrumental in publicizing the Srebrenica "massacre".

    Peter Galbraith, the US ambassador in Zagreb was instrumental in choreographing the accounts of the “massacre” into political assets. Galbraith sent a highly classified “no distribution” cable directly to Secretary of State Warren Christopher on July 25, using a “survivor’s” tale to argue that many of the captured Muslims had been massacred. Christopher immediately ordered Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck to travel to Tuzla and interview Srebrenica survivors.

    The sudden availability of spy photographs had a curious dynamics of its own, carefully timed to Shattuck’s mission. As of August 1, the time of John Shattuck’s fact-finding visit to Sarajevo, arranged by Peter Galbraith, then U.S. Ambassador to Croatia, the CIA had no photographs that would have corroborated the claims of massacres. Albright and John Menzes, U.S. ambassador to Sarajevo were also fed rumors by the Bosnian government during their trip.

    On August 1, John Shattuck finished two days of interviews with Hurem Suljic, Smail Hodzic, and a teenage boy, the only ones of whose accounts the entire mass execution allegation had been built. After Shattuck’s return the State Department again asked the CIA to produce evidence of the mass graves by scanning the areal photos around Srebrenica. Two weeks earlier, on July 13, John Menzies, had forwarded tips from the Bosnian government about the “mass executions” in the Bratunac soccer stadium, but the CIA said there were no photographs that corroborated the crimes. Now, Shattuck’s mission indicated that the proof had to be provided - a major geopolitical adventure was in the working, and aerial photographs were destined to provide the missing link.

    By the State Department’s urging, a new effort was launched at the CIA to substantiate the information on August 2, 1995 - just in time to have satellite photographs for Albright to make her case at a closed session of the UN Security Council on August 10, 1995. Accidentally, it coincided with finalizing Anthony Lake’s diplomatic initiative on bombing the Serbs, presented to the European allies as a fact, not a proposal.

    The public relations machine thus was in full swing by the time all preparations were made for the assault by the U.S.-trained and equipped Croat army in Krajina in August 1995. Peter Galbraith’s insistence on Shattucks’ fact-finding mission has paid off. The aim apparently was to convey to the public that the Serbs were murderous maniacs who had it coming, thus neutralizing any possible negative fallout resulting from the savage Croatian advance.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 11:31 am

    The problem is the so called "free and democratic Western World"

    We're collectively witnessing the planning, psychological preparation of the "sensitive" and half sleep people to yet another crime against another nation with Bush, the pawn on duty, playing the wise arbiter while his lieutenants beat the war drums and the rest of the "concerned" world leaders pretending "it would be better to be gently seduced than brutally raped" but never the less accepting the idea: it has to be done, can't go on like this, time is pressing, our credibility is at stake and the world will be a rose garden once the axis of evil looses Sadam Hussein, and blah, blah,

    I haven't hear any nation's leader saying: "no Mr. Bush & all, we will not tolerate yet another rape, not on the name of oil, nor in the name of US hegemony, we refuse the use of force and war to accomplish policy and you will bear this responsibility . . ".

    Is it possible to conduct a trial like Mr. Milosevices in this climate, by a NATO court, financed by the number one aggressor nation of our times, the number one violator of international treaties, international law?

    How can international Law have any credibility if the biggest violator makes the rules while committing crimes on its own and asking for immunity?

    Left or right? Please, remove the blinders and haze out of your eyes and see the obvious.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 5:50 pm

    Great leap forward, the ICTY up dates the transcripts from July 22 to July 26!



    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 6:35 pm

    But of course:

    War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

    A well known English author

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 2:39 am
    How do you explain that such a mediocrity was chosen as the presiding judge for the century of the trial? From technical point of view, you need no intellectual giants. If the Krstic judgment is any indication, ICTY doesn't touch on any legal issues! It would be a very useful exercise to search all the ICTY case law for any legal arguments, which are so familiar from ICJ case law, for instance. It is entirely in keeping with these meagre standards that May reviewed only the material points (i.e. facts) as he decided whether the prosecution has a prima facie case.

    On the other hand, I have been left in no doubt that a sure sign of a legal professional is the footnotes. And I must say that ICTY's footnotes are exquisite. Well done!

    If you leave the legal arguments out and only rehearse the facts, you get a rehashed report that could have been produced by a journalist. The difference is that a journalist can cut some corners, whereas a judge cannot. But the trick is magnificent. The judgement resembles an investigative news report so closely that we are prone to swallow it, too, line, hook and sinker.

    The ICTY has been compared to the Spanish Inquisition. However, when you put on the gown, it brings you some responsibilities. Another possibility to see the relation between the ICTY and the Inquisition is that the Inquisition would have burnt these people before they were appointed to the Bench.

    It is really curious. As we have been told, the tribunal makes video recordings of the trial ex officio. This has been motivated by the need to make sure that nothing goes wrong in the trial. The idea is that justice must also be seen done. But my question remains: what has to be done if a judge acts as the presiding judge acts. Should we view the video tapes, which are proffered as a remedy to the judges' shortcomings? To me, the videos are just another smokescreen. It adds to the avalanche of information. Do you see people queueing for the videos? "See it for yourself, the trial of the century, viewing time: 3 years". I can barely squeeze this discussion to my schedule.

    Then let's take a look at the word "irrelevant". My pocket-size Law Dictionary says that "irrelevant" is something that cannot prove or disprove an allegation. But if this is so, then May must have misused the word. If the witnesses have been mishandled to produce a certain testimony, how can it fail to disprove the allegations, no matter if the manipulation took place in Yugoslavia? If May really believes in his rulings, which he doesn't, he must be profoundly stupid.

    The more likely explanation is that he is profoundly corrupt. Let's put it squarely: May is Tony Blair's political nomination for the presiding judge in the trial of the century. And as we can see in the case of Mirko Klarin, the "system" relies on overpaid mediocrities, who are paid not to think, even if they could.

    This can be a good thing, believe it or not. The Kosovars, for instance, rejected Milan Panic as a negotiator, because he was so even-handed that he might have given them a compromise, which of course wasn't enough. They wanted Milosevic, which rejected any compromise. What would become of this trial, if the presiding judge were competent? He might get Milosevic in jail for life while rejected the most of the charges. That would be a very difficult situation. But now that the judge is May, we can have an all-or-nothing judgement. First May accepts all the charges, but because he had no right to do so, his ruling will be null.

    There is one principle in Bin Cheng's book (General Principles of Law) worth mentioning: Fraus omnia corrumpit (fraud corrupts everything). Viewed from this point of view, it is good that the prosecution has as many as 66 charges (or 65 or 61). Any one of them is contaminated by fraud. The greater the number, the more likely it is that the fraud will come out (as if it already hadn't). And then the principle applies: fraus omnia corrumpit. Fraud corrupts everything. No fishing expeditions allowed. Once you miss the first time because of your fraud, the game is over. It would be so nice if the judges knew that.

    The prosecution doesn't see the multitude of charges that way. I think its reasoning is the followin. We have about 66 charges. If every one of them hits with about 1.5% accuracy, that amounts to about 100% accuracy when there are 66 charges. Reducing the number of the charges was perhaps meant as a signal that the prosecution can now relax. Anyway, that strategy shows the enormous flexibility that the prosecution is capable of.

    And what is the reasoning of the judges? I think that they believe that the more they break the rules, the higher above the law they are. And the higher above the law they are, the higher they are in the judicial organigram, perhaps even above the International Court of Justice.

    May is of high moral character only by Blair's standards. The British government said some time ago that partaking in the Iraqi campaign would "contaminate" the conflicts in Palestine and Kashmir. The truth is that it is Blair that contaminates the Iraqi campaign. I have made history by approving of the Iraqi campaign, but after Blair joined it (or actually he hasn't yet), I think the whole campaign is contaminated. As Peter Taylor said, for him this is Kosovo Part 2. The reason for embarking on Iraq is just the opposite of Kosovo. What does this man stand for? Is Bush now happy that Blair is on board? With Blair, Britain will be the first and the last partner of the US in Iraq (except Turkey, which the US has bought with real money). I just doubt how effective Britain can be, now that it is under the ICC's jurisdiction. Since according to one version, the ICC is politically motivated, one could use this political potential of the ICC against Blair. On the other hand, just the fact that Blair is just as evil as Clinton doesn't make him as important. To me, Blair is the icing on the cake, the Sycophant with a capital S, a style-not-truth bozo. The only impact he can now have is negative. Beware of the contamination.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 3:32 am
    Bin Cheng's book is old, and the case law he quotes is old. The followin case law is from 1922. But should the principle fraus omnia corrumpit have changed over the decades? Let me quote Bin Cheng, who in turn quotes some older case law in his book General Principles of Law.

    He writes: "A judgment, which in principle calls for the greatest respect, will not be upheld if it is the result of fraud...when it is alleged that an international tribunal has been 'misled by fraud and collusion on the part of witnesses and suppression of evidence on the part of some of them,''no tribunal worthy of its name or of any respect may allow its decision to stand if such allegations are well-founded. Every tribunal has an inherent power to reopen and to revise a decision induced by fraud,' as long as it still has jurisdiction over the case." (Bin Cheng, p. 159.)

    "...And where fraud is proven either with regard to the formation of an international tribunal or with regard to the conduct of its members, the entire proceedings will be regarded as null and void" (Bin Cheng, p. 160).

    J N
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 3:34 am
    I heard that Mad valuntered to be K43, the "unidentified" witness. Given that Serbs saved her in WWII, she may remember few Serbian words, that will add "credibility"...

    Jimi Kukla
    US

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 3:39 am
    Or should I say "credibility"

    Jimi W
    US

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 9:44 am
    Since, supposedly, the UN Security Council approved the attack on Yugoslavia, albeit illegally, what is its relationship to the ICTY? Since three nations that attacked Yugoslavia are members of NATO and have a veto in the Security Council, how can the ICTY be impartial? Even though, according to the rules of the court “Prosecutor shall be responsible for the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia”, I have not seen a single case where the NATO nations have been so investigated, albeit they have breached most of the rules of the Geneva Convention on conduct of war.

    Article 21 Rights of the accused subsection (b) states that the accused must “have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing”, has constantly been violated by Mr. May. He continues to limit Milosevic’s right to cross examine witnesses, at points crucial to his defence. The rule, subsection (e) governing Milosevic’s right “to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”, is violated with impunity. Messengers .act as witnesses and deliver documents produced by others. For example, on Monday, Madame Arbour’s letter was admitted as evidence by MR. May with the following admonition to Milosevic’s objection “The documents speak for themselves” responds May with contempt in his voice. May dismisses Milosevic’s request as his right to cross examine the author of the letter by telling him that he should cross-examine the messenger on how the message was prepared. Where is this so called judges objectivity, neutrality and credibility that he swore to uphold?

    Solemn Declaration taken by Judge May “I solemnly declare that I will perform my duties and exercise my powers as a Judge honorably, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously” is violated on the daily basis. Rule 77 of the ICTY states that a Judge may not sit on a trial or appeal in any case in which he has a personal interest or concerning which he has or has had any association which might affect his impartiality. Since Blair is the main protagonist in the Trial against Milosevic, how can Mr. May be impartial when he is a former member of Blair’s political party? How can Mr. May be impartial when he is a citizen of a NATO nation whose planes violated the Geneva Convention on the Rules of War?

    Article 22 Protection of victims and witnesses states that “The International Tribunal shall provide in its rules of procedure and evidence for the protection of victims and witnesses”. Where is the protection accorded for Mr. Markovic? The rule further states that “Any person who attempts to interfere with or intimidate a witness may be found guilty of contempt and sentenced in accordance with Sub-rule (A)”. Why has Mr. May not indicted those that tortured Mr. Markovic so that he would provide false evidence against Milosevic? Obviously, Mr. May might need to prosecute members of the court where he presides? However, we all know that every member of this court has been granted immunity against prosecution no matter how they conduct the trial. What a FARCE. Sorry I am yelling again.

    Rule 95 (Evidence Obtained by Means Contrary to Internationally Protected Human Rights) states that “No evidence shall be admissible if obtained by methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical to, and would seriously damage, the integrity of the proceedings.” Why did Mr. May allow Markovoc’s evidence for the prosecution when Markovic claimed that he was tortured? Markovic’s pre-trial statement should have been thrown out “ab initio” by Mr. May.

    The status, privileges and immunities of the International Tribunal Rule 14 which deals with Contempt of the Tribunal should have been use by Mr. May on practically every witness from Kosovo, including Mr. Rugova since they all lied. Mr. May’s reluctance to rule on liars is another indication which smacks at his lack of neutrality, objectivity and credibility.

    We might hope that the appeal chamber, which will examine the FACTS and the LAW as it is empowered to do. In its wisdom, I hope that, it will throw the case out and show Mr. May, once and for all, as a lackey of Blair and the abettor of NATO criminality.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 10:56 am

    I would like to read the article quoting amici curiae Wladimiroff (NATO) saying at this stage of the trial if it were to end now, there is enough evidence to convict Mr. Milosevic.

    Mr. Milosevic has protested Mr. Wladimiroff (NATO) declarations to the press calling for his disqualification in assisting the court. Mr. Waldimiroff (NATO) denies the statement saying the article was published without his review.

    Military "expert" and OTP employee Philips Coo (NATO) told the court he came to the conclusions stated in his report about the VJ by reading the indictment!

    I don't think the "appeal" chamber will find anything worng with Mr. May (NATO) since the appeal chamber is the same institution: another NATO establishement.

    Mr. Milosevic asked the court if he could like the prossecution and now the amici curiae give a press conference. You can guess the answer.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 11:01 am

    The article quotes Mr. Wladimiroff (NATO) saying he is underpaid and leaving the job at the ICTY. He did not contest that.

    Prosecutor Dirk Ryneveld (NATO) is also leaving. Miss Romano (NATO) left sometime ago, quietly.

    Adiós muchachos, compañeros de mi vida . . .

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 11:04 am
    WT: excellent points.

    Except, as far as I remember, the UN SC did NOT approve the attack on Yugoslavia. Washington had done everything to avoid the SC vote on the attack, since they knew that it will be vetoed by both Russia and China.

    Our imperial masters avoid the UN SC like a pest when they know that their plans may be vetoed (see Iraq), and they are the first ones to run to the UN for "mandates" when it serves their ends and they can use UN as a front (the occupation of Kosovo).

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 2:37 pm

    There was no United Nations debate on NATO intervention, I mean war on 24 March 1999 just weeks before its glorious 50th Anniversary celebrated in Washington by the Defense-Industrial Complex with the solemnity of the Nazi Party Day in Nüremberg, helas without Lina Rifenstahl filming. Spielberg was not up to it, or he was not invited.

    Instead of a UN debate, or vote, or anything like that, the high priests of "human rights" found some convoluted reason to allow the NATO, an extended branch of the UNO (first I heard) to intervene never-the-less without having to seek the UN SC approval, since it was argued the intervention was "urgent" and "morally" justified and therefor a dabate which by definition would have brought dissent had to be avoided, and justifiably so, they told us rather un-convincingly hours before the bombs began to fall in "Operation Punishment", name stolen from the Luftwaffe under which the same fate was suffered by Belgrade in April 1941.

    To be fair. When the unravelling of Yugoslavia began, mostly undermined by the hidden hand of Wall St. and the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Europeans favoured a UN brokered solution and peace keepers, or what ever they were called, were deployed.

    By 1994 the US did not want any more UN sponsored solutions wanting a freer hand and asked for their removal clearing the way for NATO(US) air strikes as we saw in Bosnia against the Serbs of Pale, cutting any effective help from Belgrade and "culminating" in Holbrooke's Dayton, reminescent of Benes giving away Czschoslovakia to Adolf in 1938, actually about this time of the year.

    Now NATO runs a couple of Protectorates, one in B/H another in Kosovo where failing to have captured the largets Yugoslav Air Force (nuclear attack proof) base because the Russian got there first had to build Camp Bond . . .and there is no, what is it called? "exit strategy"

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 9:06 pm
    I am interested in the bit about there being a legal maxim that proof of fraud corrupts all evidence from the same source. The very 1st trial carried out by this court was of a DUSAN TADIC. In this a prosecution witness DRAGAN OPACIC was proven to have lied & admitted that this had been done under pressure & torture by Izetbegivic's thugs (they had also coached him using ITN's faked film). You can check this on http://www.cdsp.neu.edu/info/students/marko/dani/dani18.html.& also find out what happened to him. If you go through trial documents on the net you will be amazed to see how it is skipped over. The parallel with Rade Markovic is obvious. Since the court have therefore been aware from the very 1st trial that the Bosnian moslems were deliberately faking evidence the legal maxim cited above would seem to me (I am not a lawyer) to REQUIRE the court to assume any witness evidence from people under Bosnian moslem control to be corrupted. I would be interested in an informed legal opinion.

    Neil Craig
    UK

  • Wednesday September 11, 2002 at 11:50 pm
    This is just an update on Mr. Tiggelaar and Domovina Net. Domovina Net is a Muslim web page which reflects Isetbegovic’s vision of Bosnia. I have no problem with this site if it was neutral. The fact is that this site does not represent objectivity and neutrality, nor does it have any credibility since it represents one point of view.

    This site does not see Fikret Abdic’s vision of unity as an option. This site sees the Serbs as the enemy. This site provides the video feed so that you and I will have a visual event, however distorted, in front of us. Thank you for the video feed Mr. Tirigelaar. I find it a positive bridge between the people of Bosnia. Imagine what it would be like if it was truly free of bias, inference and judgment?????.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Thursday September 12, 2002 at 12:17 am
    To the Socialists on this forum: what's wrong with the WSWS? http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/hagu-s11.shtml

    They consistently spell Kosovo as "Kosova", following the Albanian preference, even when they provide direct quotes from Milosevic, Markovic and May in their summary.

    It is in a rather poor taste.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Thursday September 12, 2002 at 2:51 am
    If Milosevic wants to argue that ICTY is an illegal organ, he had better do it by arguing on the basis of fraus omnia corrumpit. You know, the competence of the Security Council to establish a judicial organ is strictly forbidden in the UN Charter, but on the other hand, the lawyers will sometimes argue contra legem, which means that the law says one thing but do do the opposite. In this case, the argument would possibly be praeter legem, which means that we just add something to the UN Charter without really changing it.

    The result would be the same as with the argument that ICTY is an illegal organ. If the grounds for fraud apply in this case, they apply in every other judgement that the tribunal has handed down.

    Because this is so extremely important, I would like to quote Bin Cheng's footnote, which he attaches to his treatment of fraus omnia corrumpit. The Committee for Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives declared in its report on the U.S.-Venezuelan Commission: "The alleged commission was a conspiracy; its proceddings were tainted with fraud. That fraud affects its entire proceedings. It was diseased throughout, and there is no method known to the Committee by which to separate the fraudulent part from the honest part and establish any portion in soundness and integrity". Here you see why fraud corrupts everything. Maybe the catch is what follows: Justice to Venezuela demands these proceedings should be set aside speedily". In ICTY we have no judges like that.

    The problem is that this report is from 1883. And that is a problem. Because law is not truth but style, it follows that law is defined as something that the lawyers do. That means that you have to follow the legal fashion, otherwise you are outside the precincts of law.

    On the other hand, we are dealing with general principles of law, and it would seem to me that some things are not subject to change even in law, and the prohibition of fraud is one of them. Even if ICTY is contra legem from the viewpoint of the UN Charter, you need a good reason to deviate from it. Fraud isn't one. These general principles supersede everything.

    Another good point about the allegation of fraud - compared to the illegality of the organ's establishment - is that even if May is not too enthousiastic about the allegation, he must go through the motions that such an allegation requires. It may now be established ICTY case law that ICTY can rule by itself on any accusations levelled against it, but if that is done in case of fraud allegation, the discrepancy is just too gross.

    But maybe I am naive. Suppose that the fraud allegation has to be taken to the International Court of Justice. Do we have to trust the ICJ to make wise decisions, based on its preliminary ruling on the Legality of Use of Force case?

    There is an anti-Serb trends that permeates everything. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Naletilic case that the ICTY Statute guarantees a fair trial, so the ECHR can have nothing to add to it. This is scary. The more requirements you place on the qualifications of the judges in the ICTY Statute, for instance, the harder it becomes for ICTY to break them. Consider this. In the ICJ, the judges are not required to be "impartial" according to Art. 2 of the ICJ Statute. In the ICTY, they are. According to the ECHR reasoning, no-one can say that an ICTY judge is impartial, because the ICTY Statute says they are impartial. And this places the ICTY even above the ICJ, because the ICJ doesn't require the judges to be impartial. And that also means that the ICJ cannot review the ICTY judgments. And the requirement of "impartiality" would also mean that the rules that govern the nationality of the judges don't apply to the ICTY, because the ICTY judges are required to be impartial regardless of their nationality.

    Law is what lawyers do, so all this is perfectly all right. Milosevic may be right in the traditional sense, but we have passed that phase of "truth". His case might seem a bit better if he had a visible legal team with him. You know, the tribunal's actions have been measured according to the capacities of a sizeable defense team. That is why a person who defends himself, like Milosevic, feels he is flooded with thousands of pages of information. The fact that Milosevic is defending himself therefore offers a very welcome excuse to any misconduct that the tribunal might be subjected to.

    Of course, the Kierkegaardians know better. It has even been suggested that law is completely out of place in law. In law, you need neat arguments. Of course, the Kierkegaardians know better even that. (This is just to show that such rubbish isn't necessarily any more philosophical than the good old commmon sense views.)

    Then to the role - the very curious role - of Tony Blair. When I first read his "blood price" statement, I was taken aback. I brought to my mind the expression that is used in Ivo Andric's novel The Bridge on the Drina. When Andric means the Turkish devsirme (in which infidel boys were taken by violence to the service of the Ottoman Empire), he uses the expression "blood tax". Has Blair suddenly become the friend of the Serbs? But no. There is a more disturbing exegesis of Blair's statement.

    If you wanted Jesus analogies, here is one. When the chief priests were talking about the 30 pieces of silver that Judas eventually threw at their faces, they said: "It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood" (Matthew 27:6). Is Blair a chief priest that has already paid 30 pieces of silver to get his hands on Milosevic? Did he pay that to the Serbs? Or is he now paying it to the White House? Is Bush's message now that Milosevic will be released, unless Blair pays his blood price in the form of the invasion of Iraq? Is Blair conscious of what he is saying? He doesn't have to be. Remember the high priest Caiaphas "gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people" (John 18:14). Even he didn't know how right he was: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation" (John 11:51).

    Tony Tony, what have you done? But I wouldn't go as far as Tony. I still insist that Milosevic is not the Messiah, even if Tony calls for such exegesis with his evocative language. This case is still in principle a case between humans. However, depending on how deep the roots of fraud reach, the case may turn cosmic.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Thursday September 12, 2002 at 3:36 am
    Neil, maybe something that I left out of my quotation from Bin Cheng's book (actually 1922 case law) answers your question:

    " 'A certain amount of exaggeration and even misrepresentation of facts on the part of the individuals ... 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...no tribunal...may allow its decision to stand it the allegation is well-founded' " (p. 159).

    In the latter sentence, the crucial word is "misled". Of course, if the tribunal chooses not to know better, it has not been misled, in which case it is not enough to scrap the judgment. Then the problem is more structural. However, in ICTY the problem isn't even restricted to one case. Therefore, since the problem recurs in every case that the tribunal has studied, it isn't even enough to regard the entire proceedings as null and void, as Bin Cheng concludes (p. 160).

    I think you only have to conclude that the organ is illegal, which has been the point. And indeed this is a better approach to arrive at the illegality of ICTY, because by flatly denying the legality of the organ, Milosevic is contradicting his own alleged recognition of the tribunal.

    On the other hand, even on the nullity of the proceedings, Bin Cheng is as categorical as possible: "Even innocent third parties cannot claim a right derived from its decisions" (p. 160). This applies a fortiori if the third parties are not innocent but guilty of the fraud, even if (or rather "because") the fraud permeates the whole ICTY case law.

    As a matter of form, maybe I had better point out one thing: This is not strictly speaking legal advice. Please read the notice at the bottom: "JURIST regrets that it cannot provide legal advice."

    J N
    Finland

  • Thursday September 12, 2002 at 5:23 am
    When asked the question ‘Are you prepared to pay the blood price?’ in proposed actions against Iraq Blair answered in the affirmative. It is reassuring that Britons are beginning to see a problem with this repeated zeal for bloodletting. Comments from a letter in today’s Telegraph (UK), name and address supplied:

    ”What is it about politicians once they get into power? All they want to do is send other peoples’ sons off to war to get killed for their half-baked notions. As a young man, Tony Blair was a unilateralist and a member of CND. Now that he’s got his finger on the trigger, he can’t get enough bloodshed …

    That’s Mr Blair all over:” (referring to missing a metaphor not quoted) an ignorant youth with a loaded shotgun and an unrequited lust for power - and therefore highly dangerous.”

    What has international law got to say about leaders who repeatedly promote attacks on sovereign states without just cause?

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Thursday September 12, 2002 at 2:28 pm
    As far as Jari's additional comments on FreeRepublic (Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 3:12 am), well, sorry, I just believe that FreeRepublic are nutters (at least the owners of the site, obviously not all their contributors ;-). As I have tried to make very clear before, however, that's not to say they're not useful as an information resource, albeit I don't think they're indispensible.

    Also as I said before, I think caution should be used when considering making links to them to illustrate a point. In nearly every case (if not all) an alternative reference to the same information can be given.

    I "ain't gonna lie in bed with them", as Molotov said about Ribbentrop.

    The "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea is a terrible and corrupting philosophy. It is the perennial excuse the US has used over the decades, and still uses, to excuse the inexcusable:- it's foreign policy. In this case the inexcusable having been/being the sabotaging of foreign nascent democratic reformist movements, and worse, support for, sometimes the actual installation of, the most outrageous and unspeakably cruel dictatorships on the planet; and much more, but perhaps this isn't the place.

    Where, I wonder, if anywhere does the British BNP (self-decared racists - so probably anti-Muslim) stand on Yugoslav issues? I'm not going to 'nicely' sit in 'the Pub' with someone who agrees with me on FYRs, when I know that on any other issue I would be fantasising about sinking an axe into his forehead. The same applies to FreeRepublic.

    In both those cases, I know their motives aren't any great interest in untangling the truth about the FYRs from the complex morass of actual truth, half-truths, distortions, and Rudderless Feign and other PR outright lies. In the former their interest would be casting bad light on all Muslims ("arabs are muslims, brown skins, etc, so all muslims are bad, including all Albanians"); and in the latter similarly casting a bad light on anything Democrats, especially Clinton, including acts of war they may undertake, or even untoward sexual activities, whereas they would give more or less uncritical support to any Republican Party foreign wars (including, as I've said before the KosovO war, had there been a Republican Administration at that time).

    ___________________________

    Thursday September 12, 2002 at 12:17 am (Andre Huzsvai)

    To the Socialists on this forum: what's wrong with the WSWS?

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/hagu-s11.shtml

    They consistently spell Kosovo as "Kosova", following the Albanian preference, even when they provide direct quotes from Milosevic, Markovic and May in their summary.

    It is in a rather poor taste. "

    That comment about WSWS "misquoting" Markovic et alia, in their replacement of KosovO with Kosova is interesting!

    What is more interesting is when they quote people like war-criminal terrorist Thaci:-

    " ... Thaci stated that “the PDK fully supports UNMIK and Kosovo institutions in their fight against organised crime but it cannot agree that in the name of this fight is criminalised the war for freedom fought by the KLA that is the greatest value ever for the people of Kosovo”. ... "

    From:- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/koso-s04.shtml

    I haven't completely surveyed all such articles but it very much appears to me that they're trying to make some abstruse point! They're taking the out of all sides!

    Perhaps they're trying to show even-handedness, or something. It seems a very strange way of doing it; it's not something that exactly jumps off the page at you. I wonder if they've just decided both sides are equally bad, and they just want to irritate them both, or they couldn't pick a side!

    In relation to web-sites like this showing obvious bias (although in WSWS's case that seems to be apparent bias), and as I have also pointed out before, for quotation purposes, where possible original sources seem best, or sources close to "recognised" authority, or which were once close:- Bissett of Canada, Ramsey-Clark and so on.

    Of course, with passing time, even such sources, not spouting the official line, are subjected to the never-resting grind of the ever persistent and not inefficient Western demonisation mainstream PR & media machines. Lyndon Johnson would never have dreamed that his once AG would be so slanderously and libellously reviled in so many circles.

    As most if not all here probably know, Bissett has found himself extremely unwelcome when attempting to make courtesy calls at the Canadian Embassy in Yugoslavia.

    I stand to be corrected, but I believe Hell will freeze over before Bissett makes an appearance on CBC, or Ramsey-Clarke on CNN.

    ___________________________

    I would like to make clear that my wariness and cautions I've given concerning the sources of information quoted to make points is not simplistically limited to FreeRepublic, although they are pretty outstanding in this category in my mind.

    Here's an old pro-Albanian (pro-KLA, really) article from an ostensibly socialist web-site, at least they appear to claim to be socialist:-

    http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199903/kosovo.html

    In response to which I wrote this indignant! reply:-

    To: socialistact@igc.apc.org Subject: Your pro Greater Albania Web-Page. Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 06:16:58 +0000

    Sir/Madam, with reference to your web-page:-

    http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199903/kosovo.html

    How can you guys reproduce such terrorist gangsta drug-dealing, child sex-slave pimp KLA inspired pro Greater Albania crap like this on your web-site?

    Haven't you ever looked at web-sites with a Not-Anti-Serb bias, such as Emperor's Clothes, Balkan Peace, ICDSM, Antiwar.com, and Jude Wanniski's, etc, etc, etc?

    Socialist web-sites would do better to encourage Not-Anti-Serb, Not-Anti-Yugoslav readers to create letters, where appropriate, to their political representatives, embedded in free "cheapo-cheapo" web-sites much as I have done at:-

    http://www.webspawner.com/users/mpslies/index.html

    This is especially so owing to the tremendously biassed anti-Serb decade long mainstream media demonization of the Serbs, including Mr. Milosevic. In effect these have already been accused, tried and found guilty by a mass-media obediently drawing the bulk of their material directly from NATO's spokesmen, and "journalists" on the ground such as ITN's Penny Marshall, the Guardian's Ed Villainry ( ... er sorry, Vulliamy) et alia - I wonder do you remember LM's fate? In addition those "sources" have included William Walker, ex-KVM Head, an old hand at the dirty wars in Latin America. This man declared at the almost certainly faked Racak "massacre" (his description) that he had never seen anything like it. This beggars belief coming from a man who was a regular apologist and down-player of REAL massacres by his old drug-dealing Contra pals on his former home ground.

    ... Signed ... etc ...

    (No reply received)

    So you can bet your bottom $ that I don't routinely make links to the "World Socialist" web-site! In fact, this is the first time I've done it, and most likely the last. Nor have I done so to the WSWS, although I'd probably be more comfortable with that. There are just so many other sources available to quote from, less definable, less open to being demonised themselves; making it more difficult for those who would rather point the left or right wing accusing finger at the "messenger",than consider the sense and logic of the message. There are a lot of these people around.

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Thursday September 12, 2002 at 2:37 pm
    Typo correction, 1st sentence in last para in my last post should read:-

    So you can bet your bottom $ that I don't routinely make links to the "Socialist Action" web-site!

    Dennis Revell
    US

  • Thursday September 12, 2002 at 4:50 pm

    Years ago I saw Ken Loach Land and Freedom" film about the Spanish Civil War or more precisely about the up rising in Barcelona against the Republican Government by the POUM (Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista) anti-Stalinist revolutionary communists. George Orwell was there, in fact the film draws from Orwell's Homage to Catalonia when he became desilussioned with the struggle following those events in Barcelona.

    To make a long story short, the position of the World Socialist Web Site (click here to read their film review) in regard to socialism is that Stalin is the major cause for the failure of Communism and that revolution can only be successful when (and what when) humanity sees the light and follows an inner transformation adopting socialism without violence of any kind.

    That the communists were organized and committed, unfortunately too late since the Spanish Communist Party was until the later part of the war a rather small political party with a membership of 130,000 at the most, to the victory of Popular Front in Republican Spain is secondary to the socialism embraced by the WSWS.

    So, it is clear to me the WSWS sees with a good eye the struggle of the Albanians of Kosovo for independence regardless of the Yugoslav and Serbian constitutions and socialist ideas on nationalities and minorities rights, it does not see with a good eye NATO imperialist war against Yugoslavia and the abduction of Mr. Milosevic to the kangaroo court and its farcical theater and so while opting a critical posture for NATO, it will also support the Albanian people in Kosovo ignoring the KLA collusion with the same imperialists which have destroyed Yugoslavia. Needless to say Mr. Milosevic is seen as a Stalinist betrayer of the true cause of the working people.

    Incidentally it was Jozip Broz who made the International Brigades arrival to Spain possible and their crucial role in defending Madrid against the fascists in 1937. Over 3,000 Yugoslavs participated and I believe there is a street in Belgrade named after Spanish Fighters and I hope the quislings now ruling the country, as manner of speaking, have not changed it's name.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Thursday September 12, 2002 at 5:48 pm
    Questions: * Asked what the Tribunal’s stance was in relation to the Wladimiroff article published in the ‘Haagshe Courant’, Landale replied that the matter was under consideration by the Trial Chamber and as such it was not appropriate for him to make any comment. * A journalist mentioned ‘hints’ made by Mr. Wladimiroff that the amici curiae may withdraw from the Milosevic case. Asked whether this issue was under discussion, Landale replied that he did not have any specific knowledge of this subject. He believed however, that many of the issues that arose from the article would now be the subject of some conversations for clarification purposes. Further than that he could not make any comment. * Asked whether this issue was completely in the hands of the Trial Chamber at this stage or whether it was being discussed with the Registry, Landale replied that while the issue was under consideration by the Trial Chamber, (who were considering the article as a whole and various issues which arose from it), it was for them first and foremost to come to any decision, or make any ruling relating to it. * Asked to comment on the fact that the Prosecution wanted to continue the trial against Mr. Talic, in the light of what was said today in open court about him being terminally ill, Landale replied that this was still subject to consideration by the Trial Chamber in that case. This was made clear by what was said in open session this morning. As a result he could not make any comment until the Chamber had made their position absolutely clear. * Hartmann added she could also say nothing on this issue. * Asked whether he felt that the interview with Mr. Wladimiroff would effect the credibility of the Tribunal, Landale once more reiterated that he could not make any comment on this issue as it was under consideration by the Trial Chamber. It would be improper for him to make a comment at this stage. * Asked for the OTP’s opinion on the first stage of the Milosevic trial, Hartmann replied that the OTP did not comment about ongoing trials. She did say, however, that the OTP felt that it had achieved what it wanted to in this part of the trial. This was of course not the end of the Milosevic trial and also not completely the end of the evidence concerning Kosovo. * She went on to say that, despite the fact that most of the evidence relating to Kosovo had already been presented and that it would not be possible to present evidence relating purely to Kosovo later in the trial, there were witnesses who would testify on Croatia and Bosnia who could also be asked certain questions relating to Kosovo. * She added that at the beginning of the Kosovo section of the trial, the OTP had requested not to bring the same witnesses twice. They requested that when certain witnesses were in court to testify on Bosnia and Croatia, they could at the same time be questioned on Kosovo. It would be the decision of the Judges, but it could happen, she said. * She could not give specific details on this subject because the OTP did not speak about future witnesses. It was not the end of the trial but the end of a chapter and the OTP could have some more specific evidence on Kosovo in testimony related to the next part of the trial. * Asked when the Tribunal expected confirmation as to whether Lilic would testify in the Milosevic case, Landale replied that he could not comment on this issue. * In connection to the Wladimiroff article, asked if there had been a precedent set on this subject and in principle whether there were grounds to hold Wladimiroff in contempt of court, Landale replied that as far as the second part of the question was concerned, it was up to the Judges. In answer to the first part of the question in terms of a precedent having been set, this was a unique situation as it was a unique trial. No amici curiae had appeared in other trials in the way that they did in the Milosevic trial. * Asked whether the Tribunal was aware of and planned to take action against one of the Belgrade dailies which had published the initials of protected witness K41, Landale replied that he was aware of the issue, as was the Trial Chamber.
    As we can see, ignorance is bliss!

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Thursday September 12, 2002 at 8:38 pm
    Dennis
    I've been a Freeper since '98' and a lurker earlier than that. FR is not an information source. Links, articles and 'rare' vanities are posted to draw comment. The site is 'posting friendly', fast, current, multi topic, and as such draws a tremendous response.

    I go there to read what a lot of different people think of what the media has written or reported. I grant you there's a lot of idiocy, but through it all a consensus develops and action results.

    An example is the "Bore Loserman" poster, made by a Freeper and displayed all over the country and TV It contributed to the defeat of Clinton's Gore.

    During the attempt to 'steal' the election by a goofy recount , Freepers picketed Gore's house, with the sign, yelling 'get out of Cheny's house'. I saw it on TV more than once and so did many others.

    A congressman stiffed the Police on information concerning an 'intern' who wound up dead. He got Freeped weekly. For a few weeks there was national, then local coverage, then until the the primary election, a lot of horn tooting as people drove by. Upshot was, a congressman that neither party took to task, got beaten in a landslide.

    You can call that nutty , but this is a nutty world. The site owner is focused on defeating the liberals, who were destroying the country given us. I think I know how 'Jim Robinson' feels about the ICC, which would like to get their hands around Bush's throat. If he were up-to-date of the ICTY ( the ICC's 'baloon') tactics, as can be viewed on the Milosevic video archives, he may not object to our traffic on the subject.

    Has there ever been a poster demonstration at the Hague or the UN ?

    J P
    US

  • Friday September 13, 2002 at 12:49 am
    It is July 1914.

    Lou Coatney
    Macomb
    IL USA

  • Friday September 13, 2002 at 2:41 am
    Is May really mixing metaphors? Did he say that "documents speak for themselves" when he meant Louise Arbour's letter (former ICTY prosecutor)? The metaphor May must have had in mind was res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), which is a completely unknown concept outside common law, I suppose, but it means that sometimes the case is so evident that you need no legal argumentation. Well, that would explain the very meagre legal content of the ICTY judgments. On the other hand, "the documents speak for themselves" is such a nutty statement that it is evident without any further documentation that the tribunal is biased. And here the maxim res ipsa loquitur does apply!

    But if the case is so evident, who will declare it null and void? Fortuitously or not, Bin Cheng said: "And where fraud is proven either with regard to the formation of an international tribunal or with regard to the conducts of its members, the entire proceedings will be regarded as null and void". In other words, the nullity doesn't even have to be declared because the proceedings will be simply regarded as null and void. The case of "proving" the fraud would then be the only element that would require some kind of formal decision.

    Let us again take the case of the corrupt U.S-Venezuela Commission. Because the commission was corrupt, it couldn't rule on its own fraud, of course. No, the decision was political. I quote from Bin Cheng's footnote on p. 160:

    "Fraud was alleged against the American Commissioner on the U.S.-Ven.Cl.Com. (1866) at Caracas both in the choice of the Umpire and in the proceedings. Venezuela protested. The U.S. Administration at first was adamant. But Congress intervened at the instance of the claimants concerned. In its Report of 1883, the Committee for Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives declared: "The alleged commission was a consipiracy...It was diseased throughout..." (I have quoted Bin Cheng's quotation in full yesterday).

    "It was diseased throughout?" Compared to the ICTY it was like heaven. It was a mixed commission, so Venezuela was represented. This would seem to be in line with the principle of extra compromisum arbiter nihil facere potest (without an agreement the judge cannot do anything), which Bin Cheng mentions in his book. Compare this to the ICTY. And this allowed the Venezuelan judge to protest. Compare this to the ICTY. Also, the Congress might have a say this time, but being a nominal UN organ, it would take a condemnation by the General Assembly to dissolve the organ.

    And I said "nominal". The ICTY wouldn't stand any scrutiny in the UN institutional law. It is not that the UN can't have any judicial organs beside the International Court of Justice. Art. 1 of the ICJ Statute says that the ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN. That means there can be more. But it also means that the ICJ must be able to exercise some judicial control over the ICTY, which it can't to my knowledge.

    There are no Serbs in the ICTY judiciary. Does that affect the fairness of the proceedings? Of course it does. But let's look at this disparity from the angle of the UN Charter. Art. 2(1) says that all the members of the UN are sovereign and equal ("sovereign equality of all its members"). Is Yugoslavia a member of the UN? There was some doubt a few years ago (of which later), but there shouldn't be any doubt now. Hence, Yugoslavia is equal with all the other members. The opposite of equality is discrimination. And to me, Yugoslavia is discriminated against if its nationals are barred from the ICTY judiciary.

    Yugoslavia was barred from the activities of the General Assembly for a few years. That happened on the basis of a GA resolution. However, the resolution expressly stated that it didn't fall under Art. 5 or 6 of the UN Charter. Art. 5 says that a member can be "suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership". The resolution said this was not at issue. That would mean there would be no grounds to bar Yugoslavia from ICTY. Sure, it was an organ against the (former) Yugoslav citizens, but that is all the more reason for Yugoslavia to be represented in the ICTY. It is not just the individuals that have the right to representation but the member state as well! Yes, the arguments goes that the Yugoslav legal system was diseased throughout. So there can be a legal system that is diseased throughout - in its entirety - and I would use this admission against the ICTY itself.

    Art. 2(7) says that "[n]othing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter". The ICTY violates every point in this provision. Is criminal law "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction"? You bet. The US is famous for evoking this provision whenever its interests are at stake, and you bet that criminal law falls within the domestic jurisdiction. That is even acknowledged in the EU. The article says that "this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII", but ICTY isn't such an enforcement measure and whatever enforcement measures have been applied have been cancelled.

    Has the ICTY been set up in due form? Well, do you think the interests of Yugoslavia are specially affected? Then Art. 31 applies. Yugoslavia should have been able to participate in the discussion of the question in the Security Council. Was Yugoslavia a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council? Then art. 32 applies. The member state "shall be invited to participate in the discussion. This may have happened, but to my knowledge, hasn't. Was there then a difference between member states, especially regarding the ICTY? You bet. Art. 95 says that the members of the UN can entrust the solution of their differences to other tribunals. On the other hand, the ICTY was the cause of the differences, and this contravenes the UN Charter.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Friday September 13, 2002 at 3:15 am
    It was asked if the South Korean judge and the Jamaican judge will outvote May. If they would, they should have. They should already have protested against the proceeings, or actually the whole organ, because it is diseased without. But of course, there are no Serb judges, so no-one considers it his business to make a ruckus.

    If fraus omnia corrumpit seems too vague, let us not forget that the US Congress Report from 1883 that the alleged commission was a conspiracy. Is conspiracy a crime? According to my trusted pocket-size Law Dictionary it is. Is perjury a crime? Well, it is even prohibited in the ICTY basic documents. What would have been a nice addition to these provisions is subornation of perjury. It is even punishable to make someone commit a perjury!

    I come back to the Naletilic ruling by the European Court of Human Rights for the n:th time. It said that the ICTY Statute guarantees a fair trial so the ECHR can't admit cases against the ECHR. In my opinion, the Court should have said that the lis pendens rule applies, even if that had brought the whole absurdity of its argument to broad daylight. What the Court did say is that the ICTY judges know the laws so they can't break them. How convenient for lawyers. Can't you see how deep the corruption runs? Now the international judges are protecting each other! If the knowledge of the law really excuses a person, this new principle is the reverse side of the older rule ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no-one). So the only crimes that can be committed are those that are not known to those who commit them. This would explain a lot of the obscurity of the material law in the ICTY Statute. Such a "rule" would actually say the same as the English rule "King can do no wrong", which in turn would confound the whole tripartite structure of government (execution, legislation, judiciary).

    Are the judges above the law? Remember the famous words "impeachment" can apply to them too, and in fact the UN has a separate organ to deal with the abuse of position and other forms of misconduct by the UN officials. By the way, the word "impeachment" applies also to calling into question the credibility of a witness.

    Let's take a quick look at the effects of nationality on the fairness of the trial. If the ICJ Statute is any authority any more, it is unacceptable that two persons of the same nationality cannot be appointed as ICTY judges according to Art. 3(1). As far as I know, there a more judges of the same nationality in the ICTY. But that is not the point. Of course, the ICJ Statute couldn't have foreseen that someday the UN would have an office of the prosecutor as well as a judiciary. But it is certainly not the spirit of the ICJ Statute that the chief of the prosecution team and the presiding judge are of the same nationality. Conversely, it is not the spirit of the ICJ Statute that there are no judges with the same nationality as the defendant.

    It is not in line with any legal system that the Nato is exonerated for the same crimes of which the Serbs are convicted. This is just not possible. The Germans speak of Rechtsgleichheit: legal equality. This is a classic. It has been compressed into the adage that similar cases should be treated similarly and different cases differently according to the extent of their differences. But of course, May can say there is no case against Nato, so the two cases can't be treated similarly or differently! But how strange it would seem if this were a fair trial. Mirko Klarin already complained that Rade Markovic was too nice to the defendant, so he may not be reliable. In other words, what is fair to the defendant is not fair to the trial. But it doesn't work like that!

    To an extent, the arguments in favour of the defendant centre on the legal principles. That should do it for most of us. There is, however, a school of thought that says that the general principles of law have any validity because they are formulated in the case law. So the older the case law in which for instance fraus omnia corrumpit is established, the weaker the principle. This is what I understand with the "inductive method", which is the trademark of Georg Schwarzenberger. Then the normal hierarchical norms apply, so that an older rule is supersedes by a more recent rule and a general rule is superseded by a more specific rule. This would wipe the general principles of law away. For instance, Bin Cheng's book is a classic and can be found in any law library and it has been reprinted and updated, but sorry, the case law is just too old.

    The Serbs may or may not have recognized the tribunal. First, it makes no difference because the workings of the tribunal are unaffected. Second, it should make a difference. Recognition should be bilateral, so that the ICTY also recognized the Yugoslav legal system. This is of course not the case. The Yugoslav legal system is still "diseased throughout". It cannot guarantee a fair trial, because it takes into account the interests of the accused! This is how low we have sunk.

    J N
    Finland

  • Friday September 13, 2002 at 6:49 am

    It was not judge May (NATO) who said the "documents speak for themselves", that was Mr. Nice (NATO) asking the court who will be the aceptable witness to the court to introduce Louise Arbour's "correspondence" with Mr. Milosevic, he having said that if her letters were introduced as evidence he had the right ot cross-examine her.

    Judge May (NATO) told Mr. Nice (NATO) that since Mss. Arbour was not at the tribunal any longer her deputy prosecutor, who still is would be appropiate.

    Mr. Milosevic was practically not given a chance to comment on anything when big mouth May(NATO) began barking at him anticipating been put on the spot.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Friday September 13, 2002 at 7:02 am

    The ICTY can't prosecute NATO, nor any institution or government. It can only prosecute individuals.

    So, it would be, has it has been rightly pointed out, the leadership of NATO and the airmen that bombed the RTS building (a clear war crime), or any other of the numerous cases, well documented cases of war crimes commited by NATO in Yugoslavia.

    Much of the evidence is in the hand on Prosecutor as collected and presented by the Yugoslav covernment, yet the NATO ICTY refuses to act.



    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Friday September 13, 2002 at 8:23 pm

    On the last day of the trial before recess for two weeks Mr. Nice (NATO) complained to the court about the lack of co-operation of the authorities in Belgrade with the OTP, in two important aspects, one the issue of wavers discharging the witnesses of their obligations to keep state secrets to avoid self incrimination or charges back at home for having disclosed those secrets.

    We know who Mr. Nice (NATO) had in mind of course. He further warned the court that without the co-operation the prosecution is asking Begrade to provide, "your Honours will have great difficulties in making a judgement", what ever that means. Then the court went in close session.

    I am still looking to read the article published in the Haagsche Courant on Sept. 7 where Mr. Wladimiroff NATO) gives an interview dennounced by Mr. Milosevic and asking for his disqualification. The article is in Dutch.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Saturday September 14, 2002 at 11:26 am
    On Wednesday the witness was a military analyst whose name I believe was Mr. Cough (my spelling)? Once again, like with past witnesses, Milosevic shows this prosecution witness as being selective in his analysis. This witness ignores in his analysis the relationship between the chain of command and the constitution of the country. The constitution is very clear as to who is responsible for what in both war and peacetime. Mr. Cough ignores this relationship of the constitution to the army command but relies on the interview with General Pavkovic.

    On Wednesday, as usual, Mr. May continued to featherbed the prosecution case by badgering Mr. Milosevic. On two occasions this was so blatant that it belies any sense of decency. Milosevic asked Mr. Cough a question after he attempted to provide him with a hypothetical example of how a report moves from the field up the chain of command. A witness (Albanian soldier in the JV I believe) for the prosecution had testified that he saw a report being typed in the field where the author was stating that certain number of KLA members were killed when in fact the witness said they were civilians. Milosevic stated that he believed the report rather than the witness, but nevertheless, he asked Mr. Cough if in fact this report was a fabrication how was the chain of command to know this. May interrupted Milosevic with rudeness saying ask your question, ask your question and in the process does not permit him to ask the question.

    On many occasions this same Mr. May gets lost in following the documents and rudely admonishes Milosevic for his own inability to follow the proceedings. The prosecutor comes to his rescue and tells May where he should be looking.

    Another very interesting point that Milosevic was not allowed to make, dealt with the government directive to protect civilians. He puts it to Mr. Cough saying, “Did you see directives from the Supreme Command that civilians should be protected and the army should not engage the KLA when they are mixed with civilians” to which Cough responds that he has seen such directives. Milosevic continues and asks Cough if the army knows that KLA and civilians are present, and nevertheless, fires on them would that constitute a war crime? To this Cough answers yes. Milosevic continues with this line of questioning and attempts to ask Cough about the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, saying “If NATO knew that civilians were present and fired anyway would this constitute---interruption by MAY as irrelevant and does not allow Milosevic to draw a very good parallel. In May’s eyes NATO targeting when they know that civilians were present is not a war crime. You all know the euphemism NATO used for civilians that they killed was “collateral damage”. In Afghanistan the Americans call this “friendly fire” Every day we can see that this is not a fair trial but a lynching.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Saturday September 14, 2002 at 1:15 pm

    Captain, Canadian Army, Mr. Coo (NATO), he had prior to entering the army got a decree in psychology and had no former miltary education. "So, you're an expert?" Mr. Milosevic asked, he claimed to have obtained his "miltary" experience on the job by analysing "Warsaw Pact" countries armed forces. "Well, do you know that precisely Yugoslavia was not a member of the Warsaw Pact alliance?"

    "Were you a commanding officer in the field?" Mr Milosevic asked and the answer was that Mr. Coo (NATO) was a "commanding" officer in the office engaged in "intelligence".

    Mr. Coo (NATO) was employed by the Prosecution to help in drafting the indictment, document that he admitted used later to draft the conclusions about his "expert" report on the Yugoslav army.

    He was pesented by Mr. Milosevic with a Yugoslav Army Directive addressed to the Army, Air Defence, and RM initials the expertise of Mr. Coon (NATO) could not help him in finding what they meant. A child could have figured it out, of course and Mr. Milosevic helped him by telling him RM stood for "national marine, navy, you see Mr. Coo (NATO) we have a navy in Yugoslavia"

    The amici curiae Mr. Wladimiroff (NATO) had objected to this witness based on the fact he was employed by the ICTY but after hearing the arguments of Mr. Nice (NATO) the Court allowed his testimony based on his report which the court had somewhat restricted by redacting it.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Saturday September 14, 2002 at 3:43 pm
    If one of these judges is South Korean, he may likely vote against Milosevic's conviction and pound home M's case against the West.

    Bush has completely alienated the South Koreans and Japanese by his "axis of evil" stupidity -- credited to an anonymous speechwriter ... who is apparently dictating our foreign policy -- and by our contemptuous rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, ICC, etc. Since all this, the South Koreans have initiated talks with the North Koreans and Japan's Koizumi has (unprecedentedly) done so as well. We may well see the S. Koreans inviting American/UN troops out of South Korea and that country (along with Japan) seeking neutrality.

    Bush's UN ultimatum speech is like the unacceptable Austro-Hungarian demands on Serbia. It will alienate us even more from the world community and world opinion ... and that (unfortunately) may be Slobodan Milosevic's salvation.

    (Again, I believe Milosevic probably is guilty to whatever extent, but that Clinton, Blair, et al were/are far moreso and should have joined him on the dock, if not the gallows.)

    Lou Coatney
    Macomb
    Illinois USA

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 12:32 am
    The K41 testimony about dead babies is reminiscent of the Belgian propaganda hoax from 1914 during World War I. The ICTY prosecutors can't even think up any ORIGINAL lies or any NEW propaganda. It is reminiscent of the Iraqi Incubator Hoax from 1990. Dead babies were left to die by the "Hitler" Saddam Hussein. It sounds like something out of SChindler's List as well. It is the Holocaust propaganda ad nauseam. This K41 moron is about as credible as a used car salesman. Would you buy a used car from K41, a baby killer and fugitive from Yugoslav justice? K41 has all the intelligence and wit of a lobotomized cretin. And he is the ICTY star witness, he is their "proof" that Milosevic was the new "Hitler" committing genocide in Kosovo!!! This is about as disgusting as it gets. And they call this justice? It is a lynching! It shows the true face of so-called Western justice to the world. It only gives aid and comfort to al-Qaeda and Ossama bin Laden. They can point to the Milosevic trial as proof that US/NATO justice is a sham and that any means necessary are justified against the US/NATO. The international trial of the century is becoming the travesty of the century, a sham trial exposing Western justice as a charade. It is a lynching. Nothing less and nothing more. K41 and dead babies! How original! And how disgusting. And this is why we are building McDonalds restaurants all over the planet and poisoning the environment and destroying the health of everyone with junk food! The New World Order is a lot like Orwell's Oceania. The Milosevic lynching, sorry, trial, proves that we have accepted the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 5 like in Oceania. We love Big Brother...We love the New World Order...K41 is a fitting denizen of the New World Order...K41...dead babies...George Orwell is turning over in his grave.

    Carl Savich
    Detroit
    Michigan USA

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 4:31 am
    Although I agree with most of the key points people are making at this forum, I am often discouraged by the one sidednes and lack of objectivity which is present in many posts. I don't believe even Milosevic thinks everything prosecution has presented is false (although he very well chalenges even the points he might agree about - as he should be, after all.. don't forget that he is not only defending himself, but the Serbian people and army who has been demonized way beyond the actual level of atrocities comitted). As for K41, I wouldn't agree that he is a false witness, someone who made up a story or anything like that. He surely does not seem like it, and he made a convincing testimony for the point of view of many Serbs who disbelieved the Albanian testimonies. He was someone who wasn't ask to testify, and I dont think he can so easily be disqualified as a liar. But also, his testimony does not implicate Milosevic, who has always said that there might have been war crimes (every war has them, and in the situation when the bombing started, it would be surprising that things like that DIDN'T happen), but there were strict orders against them. It always bothers me when people who argue about something take extreme position, which is more likely to dissuade someone who might agree with the other points. One can still be objective and argue for something - that only increases the credibility. The more subtler propaganda (like the one which comes from NYT, or BBC - it seems to me that the latter has a lot of experience in this kind of manipulation) always concedes the obvious points, but twists the essential ones. If truth is on your side (or you honestly believe in what you are arguing for), you need only to expose these manipulations, and maintain the key points, not contest every one - that makes you much less convincing. (Milosevic is often speaking for a broader audience and does not need to do this, but surely he knows what key points are). And as things stand now, Milosevic has not been proved that he has ordered any crime, and the strongest (but challenged even now) evidence is about cover-up. And even there direct link is not shown. Wester media often quote testimonies by Ashdown, Neuman, which point out that Milosevic has been warned about the crimes (the Arbor letter is about this too). But this is of little significance, since Milosevic had reasons to doubt them (and not the reports which he has recieved), and clearly all he could do and what he did actually is to give strict orders to respect the laws of war. Weather the orders were respected at the lowest level is another issue, but the testimonies from these officials are something which carries no weight and is often blown up in the media. The Neuman recalling of Milosevices words that JA will round Albanians and kill them (and even that by implication of his words) was sucessfully chalenged by Milosevic (and it is the only thing of the sort they could connect him with - unlike Tudjman (who made for instance rasistic remarks about Serbs and Jews, drew maps of Bosnia etc.), Milosevic has never said things, even informally, of that sort, and the lack of such remarks (the only one being dubious) is in his favour. Even if he said something like that, that is a very, very weak link which cannot prove much, especially when compared with written proofs of comands which were given to the troops. Speculations by experts and 'experts' about oral commands are just speculations, which show possibility, and prove nothing. The most serious evidence against Milosevic is about the mass graves and the truck from Danube. All the other evidence which was presented against him is so weak, that it is laughable. There were some crimes there on Kosovo, that is sure, (even Milosevic contested that in some cases, like Suva Reka I think), although not in the extent presented by the prosecution or Albanians (what really happened is a bit more complicated story I guess), but the command responsibility proof for Milosevic's involvment was restricted to pure speculation. So, the only strong point I believe are the graves in Batajnica and the truck case. Weather Milosevic knew about the truck or ordered its removal, is a very dubius thing. All prosecution is CLAIMING about this is that the truck was destroyed and corpses removed to Belgrade under the ultimate order of Vlajko Stoiljkovic. It is almost certain that Milosevic couldn't be informed about this case - Djordjevic consulted Vlajko, and in the 15 minutes between the calls it is highly unlikely that Vlajko contacted Milosevic. Prosecution didn't even make this claim. What happened to the corpses is unknown, and remains a speculation - given the war conditions, the affair was not of big importance at the moment, and the blaim for not examining and chasing the ones who brought the corpses from Kosovo (if they were brought from Kosovo, but that was a possibility considered) cannot be put on Milosevic. There clearly isnt much proof presented here to involve Milosevic directly (there isnt any proof that corpses were brought from the Kosovo by the police). The genetic evidence shows that the corpses in Batajnica are from the Suva Reka killings. Are they the same corpses from the Danube, or some other? If they were some other, then the fact that they were burried there would be very incriminating to the police, and would be incriminating Milosevic, although indirectly. If they are the same corpses from the Danube truck, then there is a possiblity that the same criminals which massacred people in Suva Reka sank truck to Danube, but given that corpses did not have wounds from the bullets this does not make much sense (I am not sure that this possibility was even offered by either prosecution/Milosevic, I have not followed everything so I dont know). But in any case, this possibility is less incriminating, if at all, to Milosevic. So, in short, it seems that the most serious evidence against Milosevic is the fact that the bodies found in Batajnica match those killed in Suva Reka. The Markovic's evidence (and of the people who took his statement), fails to link Milosevic to cover-up orders, and the alternative explanations are quite possible. The fact that Markovic denied cover-up orders (and the corresponding part of the statement) surely does not prove that the orders were not given, but his statement is much further from the proof that they were, given all the circumstances. This evidence is in all very shaky, and the only way for it to gain any weight is to be supported by some other evidence - and the Batajnica corpses are the only one which implicate Serbian police in the cover-up. Milosevic will have to adress that in his defence, but prosecution didn't give detailed enough evidence about this. For instance, they should have called an expert from Spain to show that bodies vere the same. They should have insisted on more detailed investigation about this in Batajnica. They should have found more witnesses about this. If they say that corpses were reburried from Kosovo, they should have produced more evidence about it. It is very strange that such corpses would be found in Batajnica, from Suva Reka massacre which Milosevic claims to be an act of madman. If so, then how come police would be involved in transport of corpses? The Milosevic's suggestions that evidence was contaminated or corpses were moved after he fell from power are very unconvincing. It surprises me very much that prosecution didn't give much more evidence about this, since this is very good way for them to prove implication of police in the cover up and not only that, but also the conection with the crime itself. That is the strongest point they had, and they have only one indirect witness (as far as I know). The truck case is nothing compared to this, since 1) It is not known if the corpses were from Kosovo, and if it were (which is plausible enough) that police has brought them to Serbia (no evidence or maybe even claim of this, and it also does not make much sense). 2) All they know is that corpses were brought to Belgrade and truck destroyed, which is not too incriminating even if it happened like the prosecution says, and does not easily link to Milosevic directly (police just messed up a bit, in a not-so-important case), nor to the claims of the indictment (it links very indirectly to them). On the other side, the reburried corpses from Suva Reka have everything prosecution would want 1) The police would have to have known about the Suva Reka case, and actively covered it up 2) Markovic's testimony/statement would be seen in diferent light (he would lose credibility) 3) There would be a link to Milosevic as a likely consequence of the link to police (but even that not proven - the best they could have is 'should have known' if the police did cover up) So, to conclude, the Batajnica case is the strongest point prosecution could have made, and they failed to expand on that. I think Milosevic will have to produce far better alternative explanation to make a convincing case that there was not a cover-up, then suggesting contamination/later removal of corpses. But of course, in the ideal case (a real trial) he wouldn't have to be proving his innocence, and prosecution would have to built its case much less on speculation and second guessing. But, so far, in my view this is the only point they have scored.

    Milos Fric
    Nis
    Yugoslavia

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 6:11 am

    A sidebar to the interview with professor Misha Wladimiroff in last week's Haagse Courant contains some more information with regards to the amici curiae's position. Below is my translation of the sidebar, the original Dutch edition is at

    http://www.haagschecourant.nl/CDA/
    regioportal/0,2078,8104,00.html

    --

    Wladimiroff: Sufficient evidence against Milosevic

    by Frans van den Houdt

    The Hague - The evidence presented so far is enough to convict Slobodan Milosevic, says Dutch lawyer Michail Wladimiroff in an interview with this newspaper.

    "If the trial involved just Kosovo and the balance would be made up now, Milosevic is certain to be convicted."

    Together with British Steven Kay and and Serbian Branislav Tapuskovic, Wladimiroff was appointed by the UN's Yugoslavia-tribunal last year to oversee that Milosevic gets a fair trial.

    The 'friends of the court' in the Milosevic trial are considering to resign early following a dispute over their fees, according to Wladimiroff. They find it unacceptable that the tribunal's registrar wants to change financial arrangements agreed on earlier because of budget cuts. "Of course the registrar must be careful with the budget. Technically speaking the United Nations are broke, and I understand cuts are necessary, but not in this way."

    --

    In a follow-up, Sept 12th's Haagse Courant writes:

    http://www.haagschecourant.nl/CDA/regioportal/
    1,2078,1553__1226008_,00.html?ArchiefID=1226008

    What follows is my translation of the second paragrpah:

    --

    Verbatim quote from the Waldimiroff interview: "If the trial involved just Kosovo and the balance would be made up now, Milosevic is certain to be convicted. A clear link between army and police, the massacres in Kosovo and Milosevic has been established." Wladimiroff explained his points of view yesterday, after Milosevic had criticised him on the last day of the Kosovo part of the trial. According to the lawyer the newspaper interview was "not a complete representation of what I have said." The three trial judges gave him seven days to submit his written reaction to his statements [in the interview]. Next the judges will decide whether the amicus may continue his work.

    --

    FT



    Frank Tiggelaar
    Amsterdam
    Holland

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 11:21 am

    "If the trial involved just Kosovo and the balance would be made up now, Milosevic is certain to be convicted. A clear link between army and police, the massacres in Kosovo and Milosevic has been established."

    Is it not jumping to conclussions a little bit too early? Since like in any trial one can assume the accused had to have a chance to defend himself, not just by cross examining the prosecutor's witness but by bringing witnesses to atest to his case and innocence.

    It is all quoted in the press, Mr. Wladimiroff (NATO) comment as "legal expert" that a "clear case has been" and "the balance would be made now", well please what balance? between what and what?

    Had Mr. Milsoevic presented his defence, his witnesses, his rebuttal then one could speak about "balance" but how can it be so without that essential element of the trial? That Professor Wladimiroff (NATO) can make this statement is in itself a little bit suspicious in itself, helas that was what the "free and independent" press was waiting for and that is what Mr. Waldimiroff (NATO) provided to them.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 12:00 pm
    Mr. Fric, I don’t believe that most persons posting on this page are doing so with blinders on their eyes as you seem to be suggesting. The breakup of Yugoslavia was planned in the West, supported by the West, aided and abetted by the West and in the end what was left of it was bombed back into the Stone Age .BY THE WEST. The Western Media were the cheerleaders for this illegal action by the West. These same countries, the conspirators, created an illegal Tribunal, staffed by their own people, to prosecute the man who was defending himself and his people. This is what my posts have been about and if I read correctly this is what most posts on this page have been about.

    I don’t believe that any of us posting here wrote that innocent people did not pay the price in this war. What I am saying is that the blame for this should squarely be placed at the door of those responsible and that is the West. In particular, Clinton and Mr. Blair’s governments are to blame the most. These governments supported the worst elements in former Yugoslavia, Nazi Ustase, Muslim Fundamentalists and the KLA terrorists. The West was, and still is in bed with them and the court is ignoring their crimes. If Milosevic supported the Cetniks, as he well might have, is he guiltier than his accusers?

    Mr. Fric, you know better than I, that weapons were available to all sides in this conflict. The nature of Tito’s territorial defense strategy where weapons storage dumps and weapons factories were .dispersed throughout the former Yugoslavia made weapons available to all sides. Tito did this so that in case of attack, which was expected to come from USSR, these weapons would not fall into the hands of the invader. We know now that the enemy, tribalism and nationalism, was within. The West not Milosevic used this, tribalism to destabilize the country and in the process placed weapons into the hands of those on all sides who pointed a gun at your head and said, “You are with me or against me”. Somewhat similar to what Mr. Bush is doing to his allies over Iraq.

    Milosevic, Karadjic and Fikret Abdic wanted to preserve national unity and for this they were attacked from all sides. I challenge anyone who posts here to show me reliable, neutral, objective and competent evidence that this assertion is false.

    Mr. Fric, to get back to the Danube truck, for me it is inconceivable that someone wanting to hide evidence would do so by placing a truck that size in a river that is one of the busiest transportation routes in Europe. Whoever did this wanted this truck found. I place the truck, not its content, at the door of Djindjic and the Western intelligence services which have placed Gjingjic in power. What, credible, reliable, neutral and competent evidence do I have for my assertion? None, other than my own historical knowledge, which I believe is competent. I could list here on this page at least one hundred such historical hoaxes in the last century alone that were perpetrated to manipulate public opinion. In the last ten years in Yugoslavia alone, I could list many examples of such hoaxes, some which I have provided in one of my previous posts. I think Jari’s quote, if I can paraphrase it “know your enemy like he knows you” does not apply to any of those who wanted to see Yugoslavia remain united. They trusted their enemies when trust was not warranted. Their mistake was, like Fredric the Great said “those who defend everything defend nothing”. Those who wanted unity trusted America and Britain and they were stabbed in the back. Now, the governments of these same countries are using the Tribunal to wash the blood from their own hands.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 1:07 pm
    How much money has been made off the Serbs so far?

    Why do we think Bob Dole became so involved in Bosnia and Kosovo. Remember this is the ex Senator who lost his dignity when he did a commercial for Viagra. The following is from a CSPAN transcript. Power is promoting her book. “A Problem From Hell.” POWER: Perhaps -- I'm not remembering. But not a -- yes, not a -- not a golden moment for any of those senators, who had golden moments in their days. And Dole's golden moment -- and he is -- he's the -- he's in some ways the central protagonist in the book, apart from Lemkin, in that he owns Bosnia on the Senate. He becomes the conscience of the Senate on Bosnia.

    LAMB: Why? What motivated him to get involved in Bosnia? POWER: Well, as is so often the case, and I wish it didn't have to be this way, but some combination of serendipity and personal encounter. And like Morgenthau with those missionaries and like Lemkin with himself having to take flight and 49 members of Lemkin's family getting murdered, Dole, of course, had that terrible war injury in World War II, was brought -- shipped back to the United States in a full body cast, and a recuperative plastic surgeon in Chicago offered to operate him if he could get his train fare to Chicago taken care of. Famously in Kansas, they all chipped in, got him his train fare, goes up to Chicago.

    This doctor, named Hampar Kelikian, operates on Dole. Kelikian is himself an Armenian survivor, and he regales Dole with these stories of what had been done to his family. And he'd lost, you know, his parents, his sisters. And he tells Dole about -- one, about the Balkans, two, about the concept of genocide that, you know, he says, there's this guy Lemkin and he's invented this word and there's this convention. And keep your eye out for genocide. Don't make the Holocaust the standard. You know, it has happened through history and it's happened through time. And so that's one thing I think that really motivated Dole.

    The second is that as a result of this sort of seed having been planted, as a congressman he made a number of trips to the Balkans. And on one of those trips, in 1989, he happened to -- he visited Kosovo, of all places, before anybody had heard of Kosovo -- a full 10 years before the NATO intervention there. And these Kosovars came out to cheer him. They'd never had a visit by such a high-level American politician.

    And the next thing, coming down out of the hills, he saw these covered trucks filled with Serb police and paramilitary units. And these guys came out with their truncheons and their tear gas, and they just started whacking all of these Albanians in sight. And Dole has got his face pressed up against the glass, he's thinking, My God, the brutality of this regime.

    So from that point on, while the rest of us were sort of reading, myself included, atrocity reports with a kind of glazed eye effect, Dole has in his mind these truncheons, this tear gas, and these helpless Albanians.

    So beginning under the Bush administration, when Baker didn't have a dog in the fight, Dole had a dog in the fight. He called for confronting the Serbs, using air strikes, lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnian Muslims, and then was very consistent under Clinton. But the thing that makes Dole different, unlike all the other up-standers, is that he succeeds in turning genocide into an issue for American domestic politics. No other up-stander had every succeeded in doing that.

    And he does it by taking advantage of, number one, the fact that the genocide lasted 3 1/2 years, that you had a steady, you know, consistent coverage in the major newspapers -- in "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post," consistent editorial support for intervention -- William Safire and Anthony Lewis actually agreeing on something for 3 1/2 years. You had Jewish groups teaming up with human rights groups, grass tops and grassroots advocacy. And in July of 1995, when the massacre in Srebrenica took place, and 7,000 Muslim men and boys are murdered in cold blood in a 10-day period, effectively on television -- I mean, we sort of covered it all, right down to the -- to the residue of the killing and the refugees describing the killing.

    Dole uses that to secure on Capitol Hill a lift of the arms embargo against the Bosnian Muslims. And the climactic scene of the book is Clinton on the putting green realizing that Dole, a presidential challenger, Senate majority leader, has succeeded in making foreign policy on Capitol Hill, has humiliated the president, and has ensured that American troops are going to have to get involved, withdrawing European peacekeepers. And Clinton's screaming, and he says, I'm getting creamed. We've got to stop the killing. I'm getting creamed. Bob Dole -- and others, but with him at the lead as an American influential decision-maker, turned the occurrence of genocide into something that was actually politically costly for an American president. And that had never happened before.

    A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide

    Kathryn Love
    SJC
    USA

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 5:27 pm
    What would some not do for One Billion Dollars?

    Like Milos Fric I do not know what to believe about the allegation of ‘bodies in a truck in the Danube’ and its extension to a fleet of trucks transporting thousands of bodies from Kosovo to Serbia. But it seems to me that the allegation would be more convincing if forensic evidence was produced to show the origin of the bodies - as it should be simply for the humanitarian purpose of informing the relatives. As for the allegation of secret burial sites in Serbia this deserves the strongest of investigations to be brought to a convincing conclusion. What are the Serbian authorities doing about these matters? We shall remain extremely sceptical if the answer is ‘Nothing’.

    What I am certain about as far as Britain is concerned is that Blair and his media chums, especially the BBC, have piled lie upon lie in their assault on Serbia. The Death Camps, the Rape Camps, the 100,000 murdered ethnic Albanians now reduced to 10,000, and the many claimed but non existent mass graves: Also the bombings of refugee convoys, of housing estates, of buses and of prisons all blamed on Serb shelling. Another possibly relevant fact is that UN authorities in Kosovo have complained about the transport of bodies from Albania into Kosovo.

    Conversely Blair and his chums have remained silent about their support for Islamic terrorists in Kosovo including al-Qaeda and Mujahedeen, about the ethnic cleansing of a quarter of a million of the Kosovo minority populations, of the abduction torture and murder of some 2,000 thousand of them, of the location of the missing bodies and the ghettoes the remainder are forced to live in. Thanks largely to Blair and BBC the British public in general know nothing of these horrors perpetrated in their name. Jacky Rowland boasts of the objectivity of the BBC. Let the BBC demonstrate this objectivity by belatedly reporting objectively on the Hell Hole called Kosovo, which Blair boasts of as ‘His finest hour’.

    Based on this evidence there is no feasible limit to Nato’s fabrication. It is all summed up nicely in General Naumann’s ‘Operation Horseshit’.

    Fortunately an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania has turned his rich knowledge and experience on this story and his analysis is compelling.

    For the credentials of Francisco Gil-White See CV

    For his analysis of the saga which culminated in the kidnapping of Milosevic and his rich ransom from the ICTY:

    Read his analysis here

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 7:06 pm

    Where are the forensic experts?

    The Dubrava prison bombing in Istok was investigated by Spanish forensic experts whose findings were not to NATO's liking, ie: most of the dead were killed as a result of NATO bombing (many from shrapnel) and a few were shot while trying to escape. So rather than call and present expert testimony on what happened here, the ICTYrely on Jacky Rowland (who was denied journatlist credentials and had to leave the country-she was sure eager to testify) and some KLA terrorists (who managed to survive the prison bombing and were transferred to a Serbian jail-how could they have possibly survived if Serbs were killing all the prisoners? Subsequently, the US demanded that the Serbs release these terrorists to go back to Kosovo where they continue on with their terrorist activities).The crime committed here is a war crime by NATO-bombing a prison...just one in a long list of crimes perpetrated by NATO. History will be the ultimate judge of this farcical kangaroo trial where witnesses are tortured to provide false testimony. I wonder whatever happened to witness K12 and Rade Markovic...anyone know anything as I have not been following closely as of late. I did watch the testimony of Markovic, and was truly amazed that Kangaroo May ruled that his torture to provide false testimony was irrelevant! Also the Spanish forensic experts could testify that the 187 cadavers found and analyzed in 9 villages were buried in individual graves, facing Mecca out of respect for their religious beliefs and without sign of torture. There were no mass graves. This after they were forewarned by NATO that they would be investigating the worst sites of mass killings by Serbs, with over 2000 dead Albanians. The 187 include the dead at Dubrava prison and KLA terrorists, and also other victims of NATO bombs, and if indeed they did have 2000, perhaps the rest were Serb, Roma, loyalist Albanian, etc. victims of the KLA that they hid from this forensic team! It certainly says a lot when they do not rely on their own experts to provide the facts but rather rely on hearsay from KLA terrorists who were imprisoned and a disgruntled journalist!

    Kosovo phase of the trial has ended without testimony of Mrs. Ranta on what forensic experts have found about the battle in Racak. For all the crimes that Milosevic is accused of, so far, there was no one single police report presented and we know how many police experts roamed Kosovo when NATO came in. This simple fact proves that there is no case against Milosevic.



    Pera Bora
    Canada

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 8:29 pm

    Walter, I agree with your position that the Danube truck is very probably a hoax. To my knowledge several Albanian witnesses at the Milosevic trial were saying that they had excellent relationship with a "nice" lady from Belgrade who is a humanitarian worker. I believe that they were referring to Mrs. Natasa Kandic. Mr. Burani who invented a sorry of 700 Albanians killed and buried at Trepca mine was referring to here as well. 700 dead Albanians were missing from Trepca and some 8000+, or 98000+ from the whole Kosovo, depending in which lie one believes. So NATO/USA needed an explanation. What they need was missing, so they produced ("hoaxed") it. I believe that Mr. Burani has organized this hoax. Of course Mr. Kandic was one who trumpeted this story to the world once that it was published in the local newspaper. I believe that these two are working for CIA, since they are paid by American NGO program. Involvement of Mr. Djindjic and his government in adding bodies in Batajnica grave is very probable. To me the best indication that this assumption is possible is that Mrs. Kandic knew that in the Batajnica grave are the bodies of the three American Albanian brothers killed in Kosovo during the bombing. She knew this before the investigation has started. It is very indicative that something fishy is going on since identification of the rest of the bodies in Batajnica is going so slow. A guy that testified at Mr. Milosevic trial that there are bodies in Batajnica grave probably from Suva Reka massacre had no fist hand knowledge of this. To me it is unbelievable that the ICTY can not find the first hand witness for this type of evidence. It was a rush to start prosecuting Mr. Milosevic, but there is no rush in providing real forensic evidence? What a trial?

    The other probable explanation is just what Mr. Milosevic said that the bodies taken from the truck were Kurds or some other Muslims transported through Yugoslavia by human smugglers.



    Pera Bora
    Canada

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 9:52 pm
    I agree that the truck case shows little. The case was obviously announced to prepare Serbian public for Milosevic extradiction. It is very unlikely that a police would put corpses into Danube - that would be plain stupid, and that is putting it mildly. The corpses have no bullet wounds. Even if they were from Kosovo, it is unlikely that a police would do such a thing - it is more likely that some amateurs/paramilitaries would do that, but in that case it has little to do with the indictment. But the Batajnica corpses from Suva Reka are a different story. I dont believe that that is a hoax, and that Djindjic or some other people have done that for money. There is little will to help tribunal even from Djindjic - tribunal is highly unpopular in Yugoslavia. What was done for money is extradiction of Milosevic, and a truck case was needed to prepare the public. But after the extradiction, there was no need to do any help to the prosecution whatsoever. Why would serbian goverment do such a thing - when every help for the prosecution, acess to goverment files for instance, was heavily negotiated and was met with resistance (since it is so unpopular among the Serbs). Why would Djindjic secretly help prosecution, when even the money promissed after Milosevic was sent to Hague didnt come. It is simply not plausible to me, and I am not convinced that anyone in Serbia would have interest to do so. Natasa Kandic and the likes are not powerfull enough to organize such a thing. (btw, I dont believe she is a CIA agent, even if she gets money/support from abroad. She more likely thinks of herself as a sort of extremely honourable person, and the fact that she profits from it quite a lot she probably sees as a grave sacrifice on her side too). The police would resist any attempt to plant such an evidence - why would they let anyone plant false evidence in Batajnica, which is directly against them. I dont know, that simply does not make much sense to me, I dont believe people who would have power to do this hoax would have interest to do it. And if it is not a hoax, then it is very damaging to Milosevic - it is very strange that prosecution didn't give more evidence about it. That can mean that they are either hopeless amateurs, who think that Milosevic is going to be convicted no matter how poor they perform (so everyone would then agree on that point), or that it is really a hoax. But then I would like to see evidence from Milosevic about this. For he would certainly be able to produce it, (it is not a small thing to organize) and it would be quite a disaster for the tribunal, so he would be motivated to show that as well. If that does not happen in the defence part of the trial, I will believe that there was no hoax, that there was cover up, and that prosecution is very unprofessional in failing to produce more convincing proofs about this. There is a very strong indication of a cover-up, but too little proof - I just dont know what to think about this.

    Milos Fric
    Nis
    Yugoslavia

  • Sunday September 15, 2002 at 10:32 pm
    While at this point one cannot say what part of the indictment is proven (since Milosevic didnt present defense), we could argue about what has NOT been proved (and hence Milosevic couldn't be found gilty of) since prosecution has given their evidence (although they intend to call few more witnesses, but lets neglect that). There are 5 counts for the Kosovo indictment: 2 about deportations, 2 counts of murder and one of prosecution. I would say that they failed short of proving deportation counts and prosecution count. All they could argue for, in my opinion, is that there were killings of civilians which in adition to other factors contributed to refugee exodus, but there was no proof that deportations were intended/organized. The use of force was fierciest in the first few days after bombing started, and I would say it has to do with the revenge some parts of the army on Albanians. There is no proof that this was ordered or that there was plan to prosecute Albanians, despite the speculations from 'experts'. However, it seems to me that violent behavior from some parts of Serbian forces, on civilians, was tolerated (and even ordered from low level commanders - here I find testimony of K41 very plausible, expecially compared to the stories I privately know from people who were in Kosovo army at the time). You have seen how much bias there is on Albanian side against Serbs - from the numerous testimonies of Albanians. Believe me, the same is true the other way around - Serbs deeply resent Albanians, much more than any other nation in former Yugoslavia (and not only Serbs). So, knowing that too well, I ask - did members of police/army need orders to take revenge on Albanians once bombing has started? Did they need orders to cover up/tolerate such a behaviour. I dont think so, and the fact that Serbs (or any other military in similar situation I guess) would not accuse fellow Serbs for crimes they have seen if they dont absolutely have to, when bombs are falling around you and when you are being attacked in a way seen by virtually ALL Serbs (no matter how tolerant or anational otherwise) as grave injustice, in the name of that very Albanians. That is something neither prosecution nor Milosevic will say, but I believe is very important to know if you want to judge what happened there. So, to what extent was this behaviour encouraged/failed to have been stopped, covered up on high level etc. is something this trial (had it been a real one) should answer. And in that sense, only the two counts of murder is something they could argue about based on the evidence given, and that in the sense of failing to punish perpetrators/ covering up evidence, certainly not ordering crimes.

    Milos Fric
    Nis
    Yugoslavia

  • Monday September 16, 2002 at 12:50 am
    RE: Bob Dole in Kosovo - the pre-Viagra phase.

    The scope of the Albanian lobby's influence on U.S. politicians remained largely unreported throughout the Kosovo upheaval. For instance, Michael Ignatieff's mentioning of Albanian cabbies and restaurateurs buttonholing Holbrooke in New York to berate him for talking to Milosevic may have added human interest to his report in The New Yorker (December 1998 - I believe), but there was more to the interaction between the Albanian Diaspora and U.S. politicians than met his eye.

    The powerful Albanian criminal organizations in Western Europe and the U.S., so familiar to the FBI, have not only been providing the primary cash supply for the KLA via Albania proper, but were also instrumental in influencing U.S. politicians by means of campaign contributions through the Albanian lobby. The role of the latter in the U.S. is well known to those blessed with inquisitive minds, as is the influence of individual congressmen, who on the eve of the Kosovo showdown invested their authority in this conflict, stirring up unrest and imposing demands on the position of national minorities beyond the standards of international law.

    Among the beneficiaries were such big guns as Bob Dole, who refused to meet with the representatives of the Serbian minority while touring Kosovo in the early ‘90s, Tom Lantos, a vocal critic of Yugoslavia (and a leading "Holocaust" authority), and Joseph Dioguardi, an American of Albanian descent and a U.S. representative for the idea of a Great Albania.

    Strategically criticizing communist countries on human rights issues, Dioguardi attacked Yugoslavia for the first time in June 1986. His proposal to bring a resolution condemning Yugoslavia for violation of human rights of Albanians was then rejected by Congress. A year later, though, when he had won 55 congressmen over to his idea, Dioguardi succeeded in passing a condemnation of Yugoslavia. A similar move was then executed by two senators, Bob Dole and Paul Simon.

    In order to get official support from Albania for these proposals the American-Albanian League of Citizens for the Protection of Human Rights was formed, with Joe Dioguardi as its first president. Backed by a generous $1.2 million contribution by the Albanian lobby, Dioguardi succeeded in the late ‘80s pushing through a vote for a panel discussion in Congress on human rights of Albanians in the Balkans, and first of all in Yugoslavia. This heralded the start of an internationalization of the Albanian problem in Kosovo, and the creation of a new round of American pressure on the Yugoslav leadership. The local conflict thus turned global. The rest is, as we know, history.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Monday September 16, 2002 at 2:24 am
    If the proceedings can be "regarded as null and void" after fraud has been proven (according to Bin Cheng), how do you "prove" the fraud. The short answer is: by watching the trial (which I have no time to do, so I stick to this discussion). But even if you have time to watch the trial, what is the neat quasi-mathematical proof that fraud exists?

    Remember, proof is a different from evidence. Evidence is the means to establish a proof, proof is the result of the evidence. On the other hand, proof is something less than a verdict.

    I think the proof would go like this. I am not absolutely certain that Rade Markovic was called as a prosecution witness the second time. Suppose he was. So why was he called as a witness a second time? Could it be that his testimony was so "relevant" that it had to be heard twice? But why twice? Wasn't it enough to hear it once? Well, we know what the problem was with the first time. There were some points that jeopardized the usefulness of the testimony for the prosecution. These were the points that the judge ruled "irrelevant", but in retrospect, even the judge seems to admit that they were highly relevant. So he ruled falsely. This ruling confirms that he deems "irrelevant" anything that doesn't substantiate the prosecution's case. We have seen this policy from the beginning. Yet, irrelevant means something that can neither prove nor disprove a question. Judge May thinks that it is enough that a part of the testimony doesn't prove the prosecution's case for him to rule it "irrelevant", even if that part would disprove the prosecution's case, and thus be relevant.

    And how do we know this is fraud? Because the judges and the prosecution accept the fact that what Markovic said was true. If they didn't, they would have to punish him for false testimony.

    And the point of Rade Markovic's testimony was that the testimony was manipulated. This means subornation of perjury. Why nothing happens? Why doesn't the Dutch police storm the ICTY building? Could it be that the Dutch police, or government in general, has a conflict of interests here? This is the clearest indication that the prosecution's policy is severely biased. Well, we knew that but here is the proof. When the NIOD report on Srebrenica came out, Wim Kok's government resigned as a token of collective guilt. Now we hear that the NIOD report didn't go deep enough into the Dutch guilt question, so a parliamentary inquiry is held. That is good. That will save Mrs Del Ponte a whole lot of work, and the Dutch a few convictions. Remember that the guilt of the Dutch in the alleged massacre was much more direct than Milosevic's. Milosevic allegedly only knew, and that is now supposedly enough to convict him. Why doesn't Del Ponte do something? Isn't there enough evidence against the Dutch? The government resigned because of it. But no. It doesn't matter what you do, it matters if you are a Serb or not.

    These two points, Markovic's testimony and the NIOD report, constitute in my mind the proof that the tribunal deals with fraud. It goes beyond mere evidence. It is now established in the actions of the prosecution and the judges as well as the Dutch government. This means that the proceedings are (not "must be" or "can be" but "are) regarded as null and void. Of course, it would be nice if there were a judicial ruling somewhere, no matter where, to the same effect, but from the Dutch courts or the European Court of Human Rights such a ruling is unlikely to emanate.

    What is wrong with the world? Don't the lawyers feel ashamed any more that the connexion between them and justice is non-existent? They emphatically do not. Do the lawyers defend justice, for instance, of if not that, at least the goals of the UN Charter? Oh no. That is medieval thinking. No, one of the main tasks of international lawyers is "defending our proper idiom". In other words, when the problems get too real, you had better do that mumbo jumbo. Even if Kofi Annan isn't a lawyer, he has learned the lesson well. He actually said (in response to Bush's recent speech at the UN) that there a mechanisms (in the UN) for resolving differences. Well, that is good, because it has at least as many mechanisms for creating them, and ICTY is one of them.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Monday September 16, 2002 at 3:47 am
    Mr T left off the translation of the latter article where it should have gone on: "Judge Richarg May emphasized yesterday that the Milosevic trial is conducted before a professional court and the articles in the press have no influence on that". What do you make of it? Is the amicus curiae in question not professional, so the amici curiae shouldn't be heard? But that is like saying that whatever Mr Milosevic says has no influence on what this professional court does.

    I think Gil-White's article is superb. Too much of the prosecution's argument relies, to the extent it is "relevant" at all, on the benefit of hindsight. You have to bear in mind that all these people acted in an environment of uncertainty. If you deny that you jump to the conclusion that they was some conspiracy. There are some psychological laws that people observe no matter what.

    I wouldn't be too pessimistic about Milosevic's individual criminal responsibility. It is enough that the Yugoslav establishment (which some read: Milosevic) punished the perpetrators. The prosecution has to show that the perpetrators of given atrocities were not punished, in which case it has to be shown that the perpetrators were known and not punished. In Art. 7(3) we have the magic word "or": "...prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof". So, strictly speaking, the accused might have neglected to take the necessary precautions to prevent "such acts" as long as he punished the perpetrators afterwards! This is one of those loopeholes that Statute gives to the defendant, and you have to use them.

    So now we are discussing which witness was important and which not, we are just discussing which witness was relevant and which not. If Judge May had done his job, he should have ruled the bulk of the witnesses "irrelevant", which he will do when we get to the defense witness, rest assured. So to decipher May's policy, not only everything that supports the prosecution's case but also everything that doesn't undermine it is "relevant". And abracadabra, it doesn't matter what the few really "relevant" witnesses (also called misleadingly "star witnesses") say, because the everything is already "diseased throughout".

    J N
    Finland

  • Monday September 16, 2002 at 10:10 am
    Jari: "Mr T left off the translation of the latter article where it should have gone on: "Judge Richarg May emphasized yesterday that the Milosevic trial is conducted before a professional court and the articles in the press have no influence on that". What do you make of it?"

    Jonathan Randal, for one, will like the idea. May's statement is thus tantamount to withdrawing the subpoena. Others, like Gutman and Amanpour, may rejoice as well down the road.

    How the May/Del Ponte cartel will call "journalists" as prosecution witnesses next time around with a straight face is a mystery to me.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Monday September 16, 2002 at 11:28 am
    It is possible that this address is being blocked.

    http://news.serbianunity.net/forums/read.php?
    f=3&i=27739&t=27739&Forum_Session=
    f5d5b711b6ee44af58dc672449475908

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Monday September 16, 2002 at 12:02 pm

    WASHINGTON -- Monday -- Following the UN General Assembly, Yugoslav Foreign Minister arrived in Washington to discuss US and Yugoslav relations. The House of representatives and the Senate have drafted a law suspending aid approved to Serbia amounting to 115 million US dollars in the new fiscal year. It is also withdrawing its backing for Yugoslavia to join the IMF, World Bank and other international financial institutions. Svilanovic will try to prevent the passage of this law in talks with US administration and Congress representatives. The main condition for normalisation between the two countries is for the Belgrade authorities to establish immediate and full cooperation with the Hague Tribunal. Svilanovic has already discussed the issue of Belgrade's cooperation with The Hague with the US ambassador for war crimes Richard Prosper in New York. Prior to his talks in Washington, Svilanovic said that relations between Belgrade and The Hague "are an extremely important and challenging topic" and something that the new Serbian authorities immediately "addressed after the toppling of the Milosevic regime". "Some of the indictees had been transferred to the Hague, and we also adopted the new law on cooperation with the Tribunal." Said Svilanovic. "Much has been done, concerning the suspects, evidence, access to the archives, witnesses." "However, what is still a main obstacle between Yugoslavia and the US are the other war crime suspects accused of atrocities in Srebrenica and Vukovar. We are limited with what we can do with these suspects", said Svilanovic.

    Link

    That is directly related to prosecutor Mr. Nice (NATO) warning to the Troiska Trial.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO)

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 2:47 am
    Milosevic was not enough. Serb television is running an ad asking that the Serbs turn over all “war criminals.” Reminding them of the $5 million reward.

    Now the U.S. Senate and House are showing the Serbs that there will be nothing they can do to obtain any funding from the U.S. or the IMF. They must turn over all of the “war criminals.” After that....what?

    It would be nice if we had a law that all the members of the Senate and House had to list all monies received from foreign governments.

    There is no doubt that the Albanian lobby is persuading the Senate and House that Serbs should receive nothing.

    Betrayal never wins. At least loyalty is admired. Nothing has changed with Milosevic in the Kangaroo Court.

    By the way, it was interesting to me to note that Lantos, a representative from California, was calling for the bombing of Iraq in the Gulf War, and is one of the first calling for the bombing again, and was one of the most vocal in calling for the bombing of the Serbs.



    Kathryn Love
    SJC
    USA

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 2:52 am
    I thought Kostunica had just come back from his American tour and said that everything was swell. Why this sudden change? Why now?

    First, there is a discipline called Law and Economics, which says that the law functions according to economic laws. But you don't even need Law and Economics to see the point. It is easy to see that it makes sense to save 115 million dollars if you can, especially when you have taken it on yourself to finance the ICTY. And the Americans need the money now on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. It is just a pity that so many of the friends of Americans feel betrayed, but I guess we have got used to it.

    How about a legal analysis? Is what the US is doing blackmail? Not really. They don't threaten to do something bad if the Serbs don't do something the Americans want. First of all, the Americans do not want the Serb indictees. They just want to keep the money. Second, it is their money and you can't strictly speaking threaten anybody with something everybody wants. Maybe I am wrong. To me it seems just a breach of an agreement with poor excuse for an excuse! First, I believe that the Serbs cannot do anything more than they have done. There is a nice-sounding legal term for it too. The Americans could just as well be protecting Karadzic and Mladic. Second, if the Americans were that interested in cooperation with the tribunal, they would have handed Clinton and Albright to the tribunal. Of course, if you define the tribunal as the organ that exists to condemn the Serbs, then the Americans are quite right in withholding every possible cent from the Serbs. But in reality, the effect is just to reinforce the humiliation and the material damage done to Serbia during the bombing, lest the lesson be forgotten (whatever it was).

    Why now? I am not sure whether Yugoslavia has signed the bilateral immunity agreement that the US offered. If not, that would be a good reason to remind the Serbs who is who. The immunity agreement would have been invalid to begin with, but if the Serbs now sign it under duress, the agreement can be invalidated all over, which the Serbs won't do though, because the Americans would then withhold some more money.

    Could it be that the Serbs have a fixation with the Americans? Couldn't it be possible that the EU would be a more rewarding partner than the Americans? I think the EU membership would ultimately be a bigger deal for the Serbs than the American handouts that never materialize. Besides, if the Serbs sign the ICC immunity agreement (supposing that this is the reason for this conflict), the EU won't enter or continue the membership negotiations with the applicant countries. Sure, the Americans threaten to stop negotiations on Nato membership with those East European countries that refuse to sign the agreement, but Nato is on the way out anyway - that is my conviction.

    Since the Americans have proved to be this capricious, there would seem to be no reason not to resume the Legality of Use of Force proceedings at the International Court of Justice. You know, they have now been suspended because of "political reasons". I guess there now seem to be "political reasons" to resume the proceedings. The case against the US has been declared inadmissible, but the case against the other Nato countries that took part in the bombing campaign has not. That would provide some welcome variation in this litigious orgy. That would send a clear signal of how much Nato membership really counts.

    But you don't need that kind of circus tricks to make the Milosevic trial collapse. As I hope I have pointed out, the case against this trial is conclusive. Hence, the proceedings are regarded as null and void. It would be nice if someone would make a declaration to that effect, but since no-one does, I must make it myself. So, I thus declare the Milosevic trial null and void. On which authority do I do that? On the same authority that the ICTY continues the proceedings and the Americans demand cooperation with this organ: on the authority of simply having the nerve to do it. Besides, law is on my side. Maybe the Congress has arrived at this conclusion itself, so it wants to underline the fact that the organ was never about law or justice but about audacity. The effect of the declaration, on the other hand, is to make clear, that Milosevic is not only the moral winner of the trial but also the legal winner. (But of course, the Hell's Angels rule the world, and that is something we have to live with, so why not the ICTY?)

    No, you can't say no to the Americans. Maybe you can talk sense to the Dutch. They have a lot in common with the Serbs. But before going to the Dutch, let us ask ourselves why Srebrenica matters so much, even if everyone would miraculously agree that there were more Serb casualties than there Bosnian Muslim casualties? The reason is that Srebrenica was a UN-protected safe-haven. That brought the Muslims some rights. However, what is often forgotten is that it brought the Muslims some duties, including the duty not to use the safe havens as bases for launching attacks on the Serbs. Somehow the Muslims always forget this, even if it was admitted in the Krstic judgment. However, the Trial Chamber in the Kristic case was remarkably apathetic about this little detail, even if it would qualify as "perfidy" under the Geneva Conventions, which the ICTY protects according to the ICTY Statute. If those attacks were the reason the Serbs overpowered the city, the Serbs might appeal to self-defense. At any rate, the attacks give the Muslims no right to blame the Serbs and the Dutch! Isn't it quite a coincidence that the alleged 7,000-8,000 dead people in Srebrenica are Bosnian Muslim men and boys?

    But if you blame the Serbs, you can blame the Dutch too. Milosevic was not a "superior" in the alleged Srebrenica massacre in the sense of Art. 7(3) of the ICTY Statute, so if you want to make an exception for Milosevic, why not for the Dutch? If you want to argue by "aid and abet" in Art. 7(1) of the ICTY Statute, the Dutch have a lot more to answer for than Milosevic, whose only responsibility was to facilitate (!) the contacts between the international personnel and the Bosnian Serb leadership - and of course to sign the Dayton Agreement. But somehow it just doesn't make sense to indict the Dutch. They couldn't have aided or abetted any massacre committed by the Serbs, because they are not - you know - Serbs! And Milosevic is a Serb, so he must be guilty by association. Needless to say, this reasoning flies in the face of the UN Charter, but who cares?

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 4:20 am
    Just a few lines, because I am in a shock. Well, you all probably know Milosevic favours Vojislav Seselj as the next president of Serbia, and the elections will be held on Sept. 29. From what I hear, Seselj gains big support in Serbia and could replace Kostunica and be elected. His website www.srs.org.yu is in Cyrilic, but still one can read e.g. the supporting letter from Yugo tennis star Jelena Dokic, where she writes „you, Mr. Seselj, are the last hope of Serbia.“ etc. And, Seselj was never ever before in any way connected - even by the West - with any war crime charges, I do not even think he ever held any position in government. Today I by chance read CNN teletext, and there it is: „U.N. prosecutors say they are investigating hardline Serbian right-winger Vojislav Seselj on suspicion of war crimes, as speculation mounts he is close to being indicted.“ Well, they must work fast, the elections are in less than two weeks away. Can you BELIEVE THIS??? This comedy is too much for me to comment on. Anyone else?

    Robert Hayer
    France

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 9:24 am
    In two weeks Serbia will be electing a new government. They can do this on their feet or on their knees. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to conclude that America wants them to vote on their knees. America wants Serbs to vote with their stomach rather then with their brain.

    Jari, you are right it is their money and they are using it as a carrot and a stick. One can be spanked much easier on ones knees than on ones feet. The IMF, loans, the World Bank loans and the reconstruction loans to fix what America has destroyed are nothing more than a threat for the Serbs to vote for the American choice PLEAS DON’T CALL THESE LOANS AID. It is just another form of servitude.

    The attack on Seselj is in line with the loans. Eliminate Seselj at all costs. Blackmail, threats and lies, we have seen this all before. American advisors are working on Labus’s and Djindjic’s campaigns. Need I say more?

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 10:20 am
    Mr Trkla

    " Need I say more? "

    Er yes! Your strangly quiet on Seselj's alledged past, have you swept it under the carpet or dismissed it as "lies" because he's a Serb?

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 10:58 am
    That was a cheap shot. And oh what relish! If you didn't get it: it is not a coincidence that the ICTY comes up with these "investigations" just when the opinion polls are turning in favour of Seselj and the presidential election is coming soon.

    On the other hand, the ICTY is j"strangely silent" on the Western leaders' past because they are - er - Western. Besides, the point is: why was Del Ponte "strangely silent" on Seselj? She seems to be admitting her past neglect in discharging her duties. Or was the news a surprise to her too?

    Robert, I think Seselj was in the Yugoslav/Serb government. Normally, you don't charge government members with war crimes at your pleasure, but it is done here because they are Serbs.

    And we could also make the point that everybody is strangely silent on the prosecution because it is - er - prosecution. There is no doubt that there the prosecution is criminal. The question is: which body does investigate the crimes committed by an international tribunal. Interpol?

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 12:36 pm
    Well, at least corrupt law enforcement is one of the priorities of Interpol. See http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN68
    /Resolutions/AGN68RES4.asp . And we know from amicus curiae Wladimiroff that the ICTY is all about money!

    J N
    Finland

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 12:38 pm
    Look, everybody - forget about loans. Forget about aid. It's a fairy-tale, as we can all see. But if you put it as a question of honour, the whole world is on it's knees, both rich and poor countries. They are all playing a part in America's dirty games. They all silently allow the crimes to go on and on. They could have put a stop on the hell that was imposed on us and others. The fact that Germany is so 'boldly' against bombing Iraq, while at the same time they've supported the destruction of Yugoslavia shows to me that EU will do nothing to save us, in fact it was German interest to chop us into pieces as it was American. And don't tell me Serbs are better off being the only ones standing, wearing a target sign. Where is the brain in that? Djindjic is not a candidate, and Labus is not in his team. From what I've heard from people who know him, Labus is very good person. G17 is not conforting to the DS requests, for example for two years Djindjic is insisting to devalve dinar, yet Dinkic is resisting. I know this is a weak excuse, in my heart I feel the urge to slap America in the face by electing the one they like least. But that, again, could be only to their benefit, if we choose Seselj. They could easily arrange separation of Vojvodina and Kosovo, as we would be deemed 'bad guys' again, and Seselj is ideal to be pictured as next Sadam. Look at the post of Simon Joseph, for example. I bet he has no clue on Seselj's past whatsoever yet he's ready to assume that he's a monster, just because West pointed a finger. What would we do when EU and America recognize Vojvodina and Kosovo as independent states? Attack them with our military? We all know what would be the response from 'civilized' world. It's all divide and conquer principle.

    Yes, Djindjic and Co. are most likely selling us to the West. I didn't see the advertisement about 5 million reward, if it's true it's terrible. But what's the point of such advertisement, DOS is the one that has the means to arrest Mladic if he's in Serbia. I would think that it's a feint to discredit the claims of Albanian lobby US politicians that Serbs do not cooperate with Hague and should be punished. It's like "look, we're risking our popularity in the midst of elections by actively seeking of Serbs to embarass themselves for money" while at the same time knowing that nobody who knows where Mladic is won't be bought with that money.

    Look, I'm totally, completely disgusted with American politicians. All of them. The only way to save ourselves would be for us all to turn into drug-dealers, slave-traffickers and use the money to buy American politicians. I am not like them, I can't be bought for money. But I can't watch my people suffering either, knowing it is in vain. Show me a plan that will work instead. Remember the parallel that I drew between molested six years old child and Serbia? Forget about the conciense of the parents. It doesn't exist, you're all that's left of it, and you're effectively isolated from influencing the system. Both American political parties are the same crap, you get to choose between evil and evil. The only way for child to resist is to survive long enough to grow up. It can't obviously do that by intentionally provoking the anger of it's parents. But don't worry, it will never, ever forget. And when it grows big enough it might settle the scores.

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 12:59 pm

    President G. W. Bush recently quietly signed the continuation of the so called "Outer Wall" sanctions on Yugoslavia. These sanctions removal are essential for the economical survival of any nation in our present time and that Bush, whom has hardly said a word about Yugoslavia, would keep the sanctions in place tells you about who pulls the strings in Washington.

    Unity in facing the enemy is what is in great need in Serbia and Montenegro at the present moment. This is not the time for deep intellectual or ideological debates: it is the time for National Salvation, it is the time for allpatriots yes the word has a meaning, to rally and together take action to stop the nation from falling any further into the enemies hands.

    Aux armes citoyens. . .

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO)

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 1:04 pm
    Mr Nousiainen

    Er did you forget Seselj is a member of the so called "joint criminal enterprise" and mentioned in indictments against Milosevic for Bosnia & Herzegovina and Croatia, so why should anyone be surprised that he be under investigation?

    Mr Oparnica

    I have read much of the "alledged" involvement of Seselj in war crimes. Is he a monster? I dont know there's been no trial, no verdict...,but the allegations are there and as such worthy of investigation.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 1:18 pm
    Mr Charlemagne

    "Aux armes citoyens"

    Have the Serbs not tried this and failed, is there not another way like in Japan, post WW11?

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 1:26 pm
    Labus, a "very good person" is on record as having said, following Milosevic's kidnapping in June 2001 - "We DELIVERED. Now, where is the cash money?"

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 1:34 pm
    If Seselj's complicity in "war crimes" in Bosnia and Croatia has been so obvious, why was he not indicted right after the war - in 1995. That is 7 (SEVEN) ago. The same timing game tailored to the political designs in the Balkans is at work here, just as in case of the Milosevic indictment.

    Meanwhile, ex-KLA bandits are roaming, dealing, and wheeling free. Just when one thinks that the Hague circus can't get more disgusting than it already is - KABOOM!!

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 2:06 pm

    Athila the Hun should be investigated by Mr. Nice (NATO) and Carla del Ponte should investigate Ivan the Terrible, it is about time!

    The NATO folks aren't happy with Yugoslavia because despite the bombing and the trial NATO has not set foot in Yugoslavia, the "privatization" is going too slowly and the people, ah, the people are resisting and you don't have to be in the Balkans to experience this type of treatment: Argentina right now and more developing, and don't forget the Fertile Crescent!

    Japan? Do you really want to rise from the ashes? Better fight now, resist while you can! Remember the Imperialist Powers are Paper Tiggers!

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO)

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 2:54 pm

    The plot thickens, click HERE

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO)

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 5:15 pm
    For Bogdan Oparnica, Bogdane, there are millions of such children in this World, who will never forget. This is an interesting and long term discussion. I`m very surprised how many interesting people spend their time reading and contributing here. There is hardly something what hasn`t been told. I`ve nothing to add, even I had been involved in studying causes of breakdown of Yugoslavia since 1994. It is surprising how many people we are, who can`t forget what the West caused in former Yugoslavia. Slobodan should be suited. He should be suited in Belgrade for gangsterisation of internal politics in FRY, for which is he coresponsible. International war crime court should suite others - Kinkel, Genscher, Solana, Albright, Clinton, Blair, Wesley Clark, Thaci and all the band. I can`t forget, I can`t forgive.

    Tom Zipfel
    Brno
    Czech Republic (temporarily Orlando, Florida, USA)

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 5:17 pm
    For Bogdan Oparnica, Bogdane, there are millions of such children in this World, who will never forget. This is an interesting and long term discussion. I`m very surprised how many interesting people spend their time reading and contributing here. There is hardly something what hasn`t been told. I`ve nothing to add, even I had been involved in studying causes of breakdown of Yugoslavia since 1994. It is surprising how many people we are, who can`t forget what the West caused in former Yugoslavia. Slobodan should be suited. He should be suited in Belgrade for gangsterisation of internal politics in FRY, for which is he coresponsible. International war crime court should suite others - Kinkel, Genscher, Solana, Albright, Clinton, Blair, Wesley Clark, Thaci and all the band. I can`t forget, I can`t forgive.

    Tom Zipfel
    Brno
    Czech Republic (temporarily Orlando, Florida, USA)

  • Tuesday September 17, 2002 at 9:39 pm
    The defeat of Milosevic in the election cost the US 70m. and had the runoff vote been allowed he would still be president. Bogdan, you should be glad that you have a fine army that didn't fall into an Latin American junta that the US. expected. At least you still have a vote. Ask Hugo Chavais how close he came. The CIA is alive and well in your country as well. Regime change is only another term for control of the world. The world does not need any more US puppets.

    Pertti Lindroos
    Quesnel
    BC Canada

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 1:53 am
    Simon just because my ethnicity is Serbian you seem to feel that I am “strangely quiet on Seselj's alleged past” and you ask if I have “swept it under the carpet or dismissed it as "lies" because he's a Serb”. Your innuendo is clear and it paints every Serb with the same brush, the old saying “birds of a feather flock together”.

    If you read my post it states that “The attack on Seselj is in line with the loans. Eliminate Seselj at all costs. Blackmail, threats and lies, we have seen this all before” I apologies if I was not clear. In no way does this state my support for Seselj as a person or politician. The point I am making deals with political blackmail clear and simple. The country is in an economic straitjacket which America, for the most part caused with the bombing and by its IMF and World Bank policies. America does not want to see Seselj elected so they have cancelled the IMF, and World Bank mortgages. They have stopped the mortgages that were to be used to pay for the repairing the damage caused by NATO. They are spending CIA money to finance Labus and Djindjic. They are orchestrating an international media campaign and preparing an indictment to have Seselj sent to The Hague. They are planting the seeds of fear and it is working. Simon, Is this coincidental that this should all take place at the time of the elections in Yugoslavia, particularly at the time when Seselj seems to be the popular choice.

    My view of Seselj has nothing to do with my ethnicity. I hate all nationalists and I think Seselj is a nationalist and on balance I would oppose any of his chauvinistic policies. I support his desire to break the yoke from around the neck of his people. I oppose international blackmail and brinkmanship. I have always supported the unity of the Southern Slavs and I will continue to champion reconciliation.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 2:57 am
    Bogdan mentions Germany going against the bombing of Iraq. For now they are, but I will bet that when the time comes for the bombing, Germany will be right in there approving every minute of it as all of the brave Europeans.All the pundits are in agreement on this. The Europeans have as much backbone as jellyfish.As long as there is not a draft in the United States, Iraq better get ready. As for the Albanian lobby. We all know that the smell of money is what moves our Senate and House to act. Not too long ago Congressman Tom Lantos of California and a New York Congressman attended an Albanian award ceremony and independence for Kosovo was the theme song.This is going to come up before Congress soon.

    We must placate the Muslims since siding with Israel and bombing Afghans, and now going after Hussein. A constant reminder is what we did for the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. This is also a reminder to the Albanians in Kosovo and the Muslims in Bosnia. The terrible tragedy of 9/11 had more victims then the 3,000 innocent men and women, the Serbs also have become the victims of that tragedy.

    I do think Jari has a point when he writes that maybe it is because we in the U.S. need more money for our wars. This way we can save a couple million.

    I have been in quite a few of the European countries, including Serbia, Montenegro and Greece. I can tell you that I was most pleased by my reception in Serbia, Montenegro and Greece. What lovable people I met in those three places. They were more gracious then the rest of the European countries. Every where you look you see great looking people. I did see what ten years of sanctions and wars had done. It was sad but the Yugoslavs are special people and they will find a way. My wish would be for all the ordinary people of the United States to go to Yugoslavia and see what the world has demonised.



    kathryn Love
    SJC
    USA

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 3:03 am
    "Why now?" (meaning the blocking of US "aid"). Haven't we heard that before? Last time it was asked the question was put by Milosevic's attorneys when the Bosnia indictment came out. And I think that is the answer. The Bosnia indictment of Milosevic isn't going to stand as long as Karadzic and Mladic are free. If Seselj was mentioned in other Bosnia indictment, that would explain a whole lot too. There is no question that the Seselj trial would be such as much of a circus as this one, but put together, these two trials would make some sense.

    As I have said before, Bush's current policies would be pretty heavy-handed for any European ultra-right politician, and I am - er -surprised that Seselj is now painted as the bogeyman. I have also said that I support the American policy on Iraq but that a lot would depend on the Republicans' next move. This is the next move. More indictments. More money blocking. We can't blame the Democrats any more, because now "we" have a Republican administration. And as I have also said, everything has to be OK'd by Bush, so now we see how Bush's Balkans policy is taking shape.

    Are we quite powerless? The world may seem corrupt, but that can't mean that there are not at least some uncorrupt people. There would need some reassuring that they are not alone. Sorry for using the Reformation as an example, but the Reformation shows that a seemingly invincible corrupt structure can be brought down by a handful of zealous people.

    I think the key is the Dutch cooperation. I know that country very well, and I think this might work. Remember that the ICTY is under Dutch jurisdiction in its dealings. So if the trial is going the way it is, it is up to the Dutch police to storm the ICTY building. But why should they do that if they know the Dutch prosecutor is not going to prosecute anybody? And why should the Dutch prosecutor prosecute anybody, if the Ministry of Justice says it cannot be done? So the Ministry of Justice has to issue a circulaire first before the prosecutor can be certain that he or she won't make of fool of him/herself by letting the police storm the building.

    And now that the Dutch Ministry of Justice must be in the teeth of the American imperialistic yahoos already, it might be a good thing to contact the Ministry of Justice (if you are going to contact anybody). The homepage of the Ministry of Justice can be viewed in English at http://www.ministerievanjustitie.nl:8080/ . Contact information can be found at http://www.justitie.nl/contact/index.asp . Sorry, but you cannot contact Interpol directly, because you will probably only get a friendly letter back saying that Interpol only acts on request from the national police.

    I knew an American once, who lived in Holland. He saw on the Dutch TV a series on Martin Luther King, which he didn't like. So he wrote to the TV station to protest against the series and "believe it or not, they stopped the program (for a while)". Also remember that the tapes that contained secret KLA/NLA communications in Macedonia were leaked to none other than a Dutch radio station, and a Dutch official confirmed that they were authentic. Also remember that the Dutch are very particular about their international image, which is why Kok's government resigned over a report that the French said contained nothing new.

    So what would happen if the Dutch would react? Doesn't the UN staff enjoy immunity? The immunity can be revoked. Besides, the prosecutors we are after are - er - prosecutors, and even a suspicion of a crime is enough to disqualify them.

    The specific crime I have in mind is subornation of perjury, which must be criminalized in Dutch criminal law. And from there, we can construct a conspiracy between the judge and the prosecution. And once these have been established, we can proceed to the nullity of the proceedings (and the organ).

    If subornation of perjury is not enough, let us not forget about the torture allegations. The judge has the duty to look into the allegations. And since Interpol is so keen on combating corruption of law enforcement, the ammo will be there if requested. The corruption of law enforcement officers, which Interpol mentions, probably means primarily the Eastern European countries, not the "civilized countries", but remember that Markovic was allegedly tortured in Yugoslavia, so that would fit into Interpol's plans perfectly! But the request has to come from the national police, in this case, the Dutch.

    It is true that the Dutch haven't been too eager to act in the Milosevic case. Remember how the district court in The Hague threw Milosevic's plea for release as inadmissible, citing ECHR Naletilic case. Only, it doesn't work that way! You can't cite another court's preliminary ruling on inadmissibility to throw a case out! I think the ECHR realized this when Milosevic complained of the district court's decision to the ECHR. The ECHR said that Milosevic hadn't exhausted the national remedies, in other words, he hadn't taken the case to the Dutch appellate court. I don't know what happened then. This is a pretty old case, but it is possible that Milosevic got the message: he is a goner. But then again, the courts are controlled by the Ministry of Justice! Besides, if the proceedings are ultimately null and void, then the ICTY has no right to keep Milosevic in detention any more.

    This may seem pretty outlandish, but let me tell you: you don't have much choice. And if you want to act, do it as soon as possible, because you know how much time these things take.

    Meanwhile, we can score on Blair and others in Iraq. Remember that the war on Iraq is now under the ICC jurisdiction, so a lot of people will have a lot to answer for later.

    Besides, if Milosevic is responsible for the gangsterization of the Yugoslav internal politics, he shouldn't be in The Hague. But even then, his alleged co-responsibility is nothing compared to the role the US has played in the gangsterization of the Yugoslav internal politics. And lest we forget: do you think the UN and EU sanctions helped to clean the business scene in Yugoslavia or did they only make the corruption worse?

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 7:00 am

    Jari what is your point?

    I have a little Latin here for you, you can linked to the Reformation perhaps:

    Qui bene bebit, dormit

    Qui dormit, non peccat

    Qui non peccat sanctus est

    Ergum, Qui bene bebit sanctus est!

    Now, bombing countries, wheter Yugoslavia or Iraq (II) is a criminal act, especially the way the "brave" Yanks like to do it!

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO)

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 10:22 am
    Simon, of course you've read about Seselj somewhere, that's what I've ment when I said west has pointed a finger. How about instead of believing your newspapers or ICTY, come over here and talk to the people who actually were in the war? It could be worth an investigation what those volunteers did, if it was performed by neutral people. I hope you never get to be judged by such a court as ICTY, you would be surprised how easy it is to convince your surroundings that you're a maniacal murderer (it would help if you are a Serb by accident). Of course, you could count on a web-site of people who would believe you're innocent until prooven guilty.

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 11:02 am
    Mr Trkla

    "Your innuendo is clear and it paints every Serb with the same brush, the old saying “birds of a feather flock together”. " Please don't try to paint me as some anti-Serb bonehead

    It is alleged that Seselj or those he controlled committed war crimes in an attempt to create a "Greater Serbia" The timing of the investigation and manipulations of the NWO take second place to the actual allegations in my mind, is there substance to them or not, I know there's substance to your claims.

    "They are spending CIA money to finance Labus and Djindjic"

    And how do we know this, assumption, educated guess or cash trail?

    "Is this coincidental that this should all take place at the time of the elections in Yugoslavia, particularly at the time when Seselj seems to be the popular choice."

    So you would have the population of Serbia make an uninformed choice and vote for an alleged war criminal, would Serbs want a war criminal as President, what then for Serb pride? As for Seselj being the popular choice, I draw your attention to this recent article:

    Labus leads Kostunica in Presidential race | 12:23 | B92

    NOVI SAD -- Wednesday - According to a recent poll, independent candidate Miroljub Labus leads Democratic Party of Serbia candidate Vojislav Kostunica by 3 points in the Presidential elections.

    A survey carried out by a Novi Sad based firm gives Labus a majority of 27 percent with Kostunica 24. The poll sampled 1,740 residents throughout Serbia between 5th and 11th of September.

    However, Kostunica is the most trusted politician followed by extreme nationalist leader Vojislav Seslj, Labus third and with Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindic fourth.

    Asked who would make the most successful President, 40 percent said Kostunica with only 26 saying Labus.

    According to the Polls director Milka Puzigaca the surveyed show that if the parties entered the elections individually, Kostunica’s DSS would get 17 percent of the vote, Djindic’s Democratic Party (DS) 14 percent, Seslj’s Radical Party (SRS) 10 percent, and 7 percent to the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS).

    If the ruling DOS (Democratic Opposition of Serbia) coalition were to contest the elections en bloc, it would get 27 percent; DSS 19 percent, and the SRS, third with 10 percent.

    "I have always supported the unity of the Southern Slavs and I will continue to champion reconciliation."

    Expand on this please

    Should we ignore or surpress certain allegations because we don't like the manner in which they were brought to our attention?

    You have made your case against the NWO and shown that Milosevic can not get a fair trial, your case is proved. Now for the sake balance how about the case against Seselj et al, is there one and if so why do many here avoid any meaningful debate that may put any Serbs in a bad light, is the aim of those here to solely cast Croatia,BiH,KLA,NATO,USA or NWO as the bad guys. The credibility of those who like the entire western media focus on only the wrong doings of the "otherside" is limited in my opinion.

    Its well known [here anyway] why Clinton, Blair et al should be charged with war crimes, its been debated here, its even taken as read that they are guilty, so who exactly are the guilty Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs and Albanians and what exactly are they guilty of.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 11:04 am
    Gogol, of course bombing Yugoslavia was a criminal act. But let's save the world one case at a time, and this time, the case is the Milosevic trial. The prosecution/judge team are not only morons, but they have to be made accountable for being morons and screwups too. What I am doing is thinking of ways to make them accountable, and the way justice can happen IMHO only through the Dutch justice system. If that doesn't work, this is not going well.

    I am tired of people complaining that nothing can be done because the whole system is so rotten. The reason I cited the Reformation was to show that at that time the people felt the same, but when the system is so rotten as it is now and as it was then, it won't take many people to make it collapse. You could just as well use Galileo Galilei to make the same point. Or the liberation of the Balkans from the Turkish Yoke.

    In Iraq, the accountability can be extended to the Western politicians more directly, because many of them are under the ICC's jurisdiction (just let's see if the ICC works well only on paper). That way, it is possible to settle scores with them for Yugoslavia too - if only indirectly. In itself, Iraq II is a bit more complicated than the bombing of Yugoslavia, because the invasion could be construed as self-defense, whereas the Yugoslav bombing campaign could not.

    Finally, it is indeed strange that the Seselj "investigation" takes place just before the presidential election in Yugoslavia. I suggested that another reason for initiating the "investigation" now is that the Bosnia and Croatia phase of the trial is beginning and the prosecution has nothing, so it has to go through a couple of motions. Milosevic's responsibility presupposes the convictions of Karadzic and Mladic first, because they were supposedly his henchmen! You can't first convict Milosevic for something they did and then convict them based on the conviction of Milosevic.

    But one can't deny that the whole mess has an undeniable link to the presidential campaign. Stipe Mesic said that his testimony will have effects on the Serbian presidential campaign! Of course, I read it in B92 bulletins, and as Judge May said, the tribunal is not swayed by articles in the press. The tribunal is going to sentence Milosevic professionally, and a little unprofessionality from incompetent co-workers should not tarnish the tribunal's allegedly professional image.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 11:30 am
    More mixed messages from Washington: Bush sends a letter of thanks to Djindjic for the Serbs' contribution to the fight against terrorism. Could it be that the Bush administration has no clue with what to do with Serbia? Serbia is after all one of the remaining "rogues states" in the world. It doesn't add up. The Rogue States are terrorists according to the same viewpoint. http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?lang=english&version=standard&my_categories_class=%27News%27&nav_category=&nav_id=19331&order=priority&style=headlines .

    J N
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 11:35 am
    Mr Oparnica

    My readings on Seselj come from many source's, none of them the western media who, suprise suprise hardly ever mentioned him until recently. I agree an investigation by neutral people is the best way, but who's neutral the UN,ICC?

    As for you "Serbian Paranoia" because thats how I see it, fear not, I've never met a single soul who thinks that Serbs are somehow inherently evil, pre-disposed to mass murder or guilty of all the worlds crimes. You are like us in the UK, ordinary Europens who worry about our children, education, health and taxes, there are a few exceptions out there but they also think all Blacks are drug dealing rapists and when a women says no she means yes.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 11:43 am
    Mr Nousiainen

    Could it be that the US views Yugoslavia as "rouge" because of Kostunica but Serbia as friendly because of Djindjic?

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 12:01 pm
    If you have a point at all, you should say that Seselj as President would continue to keep Yugoslavia a rogue state, while Djindjic as President would make it a partner of the US. Bush doesn't say that: he speaks of the Serb people, and Seselj is a Serb too. One must not overestimate the refinement of the statements made by the Bush administration.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 12:02 pm
    Simon:

    "They are spending CIA money to finance Labus and Djindjic"

    And how do we know this, assumption, educated guess or cash trail?"

    The cash trail appears to be sufficient. Given the fact of Labus having been part of the Kostunica-Djindjic team back in the 2000 election, and having on record the massive, illegal and shameless financing of the anti-Milosevic coalition by the U.S., there are no reasont to doubt that Labus and Co. will accept more cash from helping hands.

    Key quotes (U.S. media, mind you):

    “We have read them the riot act.” Madeline Albright on her meeting with the Yugoslav opposition figures Berlin, December 17, 1999

    “The money from the West is going to most of the institutions that the government attacks for receiving it … sometimes in suitcases of cash carries across the border between Yugoslavia and Hungary or Serbia and Montenegro.” Steven Erlanger, New York Times on September 21, 2000

    “What happened and how it happened is our thing and should be left as our thing. Now is not the time to look into these matters.” Nebojsa Covic, DOS leader, October 2000

    “Otpor... flush with funds from Western aid groups and governments, WITHIN THREE DAYS of Mr. Milosevic’s July 27 announcement of the presidential election Otpor has six tons of printed campaign material ready “He’s finished.” Steven Erlanger, October 15, 2000, The New York Times.

    The Washington Post, the cornerstone of the Beltway political and media establishment, in its December 11, 2000 article entitled “U.S. Advice Guided Milosevic Opposition,” admitted that “The U.S. democracy-building effort in Serbia … in principle … was an overt operation, funded by congressional appropriations of around $10 million for fiscal 1999 and $31 million for 2000.”

    The article confirmed that the campaign slogans of the DOS during the election campaign were scripted by their Washington managers. The famous “Gotov je” (He’s finished) stickers that covered Serbia in the weeks before the election, were paid for by USAID and delivered by the Washington-based Ronco Consulting Corp. In the words of Stevanovic, a marketing expert of the Kostunica-Djindjic tandem, every word of the opposition's core political messages and sound bites used during their anti-Milosevic quest was discussed with American political public relations consultants, tested, rated, and approved. The DOS coalition aiming for the Yugoslav parliament and scores of local government seats took part in an extensive public relations coaching, paid for by Western funds, and aimed on conveying the anti-Milosevic agenda, reply to the inquiries of the Western press and refute the reasoning of the pro-Milosevic camp.

    The journalists pursuing the links between the U.S. financing and the opposition have been bluntly warned by Djindjic people not to contact those under the suspicion of having been traitors. Nebojsa Covic, a leading opposition figure was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying that “The recipe for such events has a price.” (Was Serbian Revolt People’s Alone? WSJ, October 23, 2000). Pressed by the price tag, he hinted that it was “enormous”, however, shied away from being more precise. His conclusive statement sums up the moral underpinning of the forces bankrolled by the U.S. in their successful quest of unseating a legitimate government: “What happened and how it happened is our thing and should be left as our thing. Now is not the time to look into these matters.”

    As far as the financial backing of the Yugoslav opposition, even before the Kosovo war, the U.S. was spending $10 million a year to back opposition parties, "independent" news media, and other institutions opposed to Milosevic. In the 2000 fiscal year, through September, Washington spent $25 million to support Serbian “democratization,” with an unknown amount of money spent covertly.

    Steven Erlanger of the New York Times, always a master of managing to present invaluable information within the framework of the customary anti-Milosevic comments noted that the “independent journalists and broadcasters here have been told by American aid officials “not to worry about how much they’re spending now,” with much more coming. Indeed, there has been very little effort to disguise the fact that Western money paid for much of the polling, advertising, printing and other costs of the opposition political campaign.

    That's the kind of background Labust is coming from. These people will sell their own mothers for a buck.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 12:04 pm
    Or actually, Bush doesn't speak of the Serbs but Serbia. Maybe you're right. But that goes to show what the rest of us are saying: the presidential elections are being manipulated from Washington.

    J N
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 12:13 pm
    Simon: "I've never met a single soul who thinks that Serbs are somehow inherently evil, pre-disposed to mass murder or guilty of all the worlds crimes."

    "..because they [the Serbs] are evil people." Madeline Albright, TV interview, on record.

    "The Serbs are murderous assholes." Richard Holbrooke, on Ted Koppel's Nightline (ABC), on record.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 12:16 pm
    Jari: the definition of "rogue" [as in "rogue state"] is "someone who attacks others without provocation"

    Pause and reflect.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 12:20 pm
    Provocation? JWR: "This week, Hussein renewed his periodic promise to 'wipe out' Israel. Few here treat those threats as mere bluster."

    J N
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 12:50 pm
    Andre

    I have never met Albright nor Holbrooke and stand by my statement. You confuse politicians with real people. The more this "sudo-reality" is voiced the more likely it is that Serbs will feel that we real people think like this, which we do not.

    Heavens forbid, should we think that we are persicuted by the Serbs because they think our leaders are war criminals and they want to see them answer for their crimes in a court. Milosevic, Seselj et al are no more Serbia than Clinton and Blair are the US or UK.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 1:16 pm
    Jari: "Provocation? JWR: "This week, Hussein renewed his periodic promise to 'wipe out' Israel."

    If Israel feels threatened by Iraq, then let ISRAEL attack Iraq and see what happens.:) Iraq DID NOT threaten to attack the U.S. Period. Yet our imperial masters want a war, no matter what. In fact, mounting further conditions for the "unconditional" weapons inspection that will be hard if not impossible for the Iraqis to meet, the U.S. following the Rambouillet script: provoking Yugoslavia into rejection that could justify the bombing, already scheduled since October 1998.

    Rumsfeld yesterday changed the strategy of enforcing the "no fly" zones over Iraq, expanding the list of targets, to increase the "safety" of U.S. and British pilots.

    The idea that our planes go out and get shot at with impunity bothers me." - Rumsfeld

    All the previous parallels between Iraq and the Nazi Germany (we can't afford to sit idly, appease, while...", etc.) were in vain. A far more obvious parallel would be Germany's launching WWII while arguing that Poland posed a mortal threat to German interests.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 1:28 pm
    Simon: "I have never met Albright nor Holbrooke and stand by my statement. You confuse politicians with real people. The more this "sudo-reality" is voiced the more likely it is that Serbs will feel that we real people think like this, which we do not."

    I have never met them either. But I have been listening for years to the people who set and executed the shamless U.S. interventionist policies against Yugoslavia.

    What people think is of no concern to the above trend-setters. After all the rich proletarians in the U.S. can be manipulated into thinking whatever our imperial masters want - we have a well-greased PR mechanisms and unscrupulous media for that.

    Dissent among the "ordinary" people has been rather rare over the years of official Serb-bashing. The public by-and-large is more inclined to follow the convenient soundbites in their bovine placidity and intellectual laziness.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 1:30 pm
    “Lords of Creation” by Margaret Cook

    First things first: Never mind Seselj let’s deal with the prime mover.

    To be published in a few weeks time the book above examines the nature of some of the political beasts that rule us. According to Auslan Cramb, Scottish correspondent for the DT, Margaret Cook claims that some leaders are put in touch with very primitive instincts when they gain great power. “Once they step into it (power) they seem to develop a psychosis of power addiction.”. She hopes that society will eventually learn to choose better leaders. Some hopes given our ‘meeja’.

    Margaret Cook, a retired consultant haematologist, is the former wife of Robin Cook Blair’s Foreign Secretary during the Kosovo debacle. Not only is she a medical doctor but she also knows both Cook and Blair. In a former publication she described Robin Cook as “A heavy-drinking womaniser and questioned his political integrity by suggesting that he chose ambition before principles.” In “Lords of Creation”, Cramb informs us, she categorises Blair as a Sabre-rattler.

    I am pleased to have some of my claims confirmed by such an authoritative source. It has been my contention that the war on Serbia was Blair’s decision: Yeah or Nay: And he has often boasted of his leading role in this attack. Without the backing of the other Nato leaders Clinton was too weak, because of the impeachment, to endorse Albright’s ‘What is the point in having this great power if you never use it’. With the possible exception of Germany the European leaders would never have gone along with the illegal attack on Serbia without Blair’s Sabre-rattling. The massive lies he propagated then now demonstrate his dishonesty and thus lack of principle. If he had acted on principle and spoken out against it then there would have been no attack on Serbia.

    So what was Blair’s calculation? Speculation: Muslims have a relatively large constituency in Britain especially concentrated in certain regions where they may easily decide the outcome of elections: Serbs have no political power in Britain!

    Oil pipelines in the pipeline now that the west has Serbia firmly by the throat: Following the agreement to build an oil pipeline between Macedonia and Kosovo, fed by the Greek/Macedonia link, an agreement has been reached to build a pipeline for Caspian oil through Rumania, Serbia and Croatia. What price now on the much denied AMBO pipeline being the third runner in this race and if not do KLA/KPC/… terrorists have only themselves to blame?

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 1:47 pm
    Andre

    Mass demonstrations against the NATO bombing in the US and throughout the western world show there are many people who think for themselves, this was widely broadcast on the mass media, atleast here in the UK.

    Support for a POV that differs from your own does not nessesarily indicate "bovine placidity and intellectual laziness" but could point to support, that is thought out, and based on the personal benefits gained through your nations acheivement of its goals. Mankind has always treated morals as disposable.

    If the general populace were that placid and lazy, you and yours would have won your battle as "thinkers" a long time ago. As it happens it appears that those with your views/morals/politics may well be being out thought, scary!

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 2:05 pm

    Do peoples deserve the governments they actually get?

    Jari, I wish it was Gallileo's trial the ICTY was condcuting.

    The ICTY failed before it started, it failed during the trial and its final failure will set the stage for the ICC's desired failure.

    The ICTY has its budget cut . . .how interesting!

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO)

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 2:06 pm
    Simon:

    “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those odds are good enough for me.” W.C. Fields

    I had my share of the 1999 rallies in Boston and Washington, with few "ordinary" people showing any interest in the affair at all. Some "ordinary" people shouted "f*** the Serbs" of called ME ignorant (as one who coud not fathom the wisdom of media networks' drumbeat "but Dan Rather TOLD us that Serbs are bad", etc.)

    Ignorance is where the real power is and that's exactly what our imperial masters are banking on.

    Peace.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 3:08 pm
    Mr Taylor

    "First things first: Never mind Seselj let’s deal with the prime mover." Why not explore the case of Seselj and Milosevics sudden change of heart. I'm intregued with Seselj and why Milosevic would want this man at the helm of Serbia given what his party thought of him in 93.

    http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/chronology/chron93.html

    "After the initiative of the Serbian Radical Party on passing a vote of non- confidence to the Republic Government, a statement of the Socialist Party of Serbia was distributed at the press conference that took place in Belgrade. Among other things the statement says that the Radical Party policy and behaviour of its leader Vojislav Seselj has been contrary to the SPS policy and interests of the Serbian people, that it reflects an extremely primitive chauvinism, hels bringing about isolation of Serbia from the world, stimulates warmongering atmosphere in Serbia, and that the society it strives is a insane combination of feudal autarchy and war communism. At the end of the statement it is said that "all political democratic forces and all honest people should join the fight against the evil personalized by Seselj ('a petty- politican from Sarajevo')"."

    Now I'd be worried if I were a Serb and this man were head of the Serbian state.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 4:12 pm

    Pavkovic runs in the elections and the ICTY investigates him too: HERE

    Is the ICTY part of the electoral authority like NATO is?

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO)

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 4:39 pm
    Mr Charlemagne

    "Pavkovic runs in the elections and the ICTY investigates him too"

    This is old news, he has been under investigation since December 2001

    http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Bilteni/Engleski/b061201_e.html#N6

    ICTY BELGRADE OFFICE REPRESENTATIVE CONFIRMS PAVKOVIC UNDER INVESTIGATION BELGRADE, Dec. 5 (Beta) - A representative of The Hague-based International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) office in Belgrade, Matias Helman, announced on Dec. 5, that an investigation was being conducted against Yugoslav Army Chief of Staff Gen. Nebojsa Pavkovic, but added that it did not mean that Pavkovic would be indicted.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 4:49 pm

    but added that it did not mean that Pavkovic would be indicted.

    How many categories of "investigations" do they have in order to run in the elections, is Seselj also "not meant to be indicted"?

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO) & (UNILATERAL)

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 5:06 pm
    Mr Charlemagne

    Chronologically your on dodgy groung, Pavkovic is or was under investigation THEN decided to run for president.

    This should please you though

    Hague to indict Kosovo Albanian this year | 21:11 | Beta

    PRISTINA -- Wednesday -Carla del Ponte said today that she expected the first indictment of a Kosovo Albanian to be issued by the end of this year.

    The Hague Tribunal prosecutor said that a number of Albanians were under investigation

    And this should bring a smile to your face

    Hague drops Bosnian Croat genocide charges against Milosevic | 21:12 | SRNA

    THE HAGUE -- Wednesday - The Hague Tribunal prosecution has been given until September 26 to file changes to the indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for crimes in Croatia and genocide in Bosnia.

    A Tribunal spokesman said today that the revised indictment would abandon the charge of genocide against Bosnian Croats.

    The changes are an attempt to bring the trial to an earlier conclusion.

    Don't you just love that last paragraph :)

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 5:25 pm
    Mr Charlemagne

    Also

    How many categories of "investigations" do they have in order to run in the elections, is Seselj also "not meant to be indicted"?

    No he's meant to be investigated, the resaults of the investigation can lead to an indictment or they can lead to no indictment, common practice in law. My problem is WHO's doing the investigation.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 5:37 pm

    Now the UNO Secretary has something to do with it:

    Moscow - Russian committee for protection of Slobodan Milosevic asked today UN General Secretary Kofi Annan to suspend the process against former Yugoslav president before the Hague Tribunal. A letter sent to UN General Secretary states it is ‘quite clear the first phase of the process against Milosevic ended with fiasco’, reports the information service of the committee, lead by sociologist Aleksandar Zinovyeff. The head prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal Carla Del Ponte could not produce either reliable testimonies or documents affirming accusations in regard with Kosovo events. The letter also says the ‘inevitable fiasco shall follow in case of the indictments regarding Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina’. The committee thinks process against Milosevic should for these reasons be halted, and Milosevic should be released.


    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO & UNILATERALIST)

  • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 8:14 pm
    Mr Simon I apologize if you feel that I have painted you as an anti Serb bonehead. What did you expect me to think when you state that I dismissed Seselj and “swept him under the carpet” without comment “because he's a Serb”. I am not well informed on Mr. Seselj to comment. In order not to be called a bonehead, I avoid commenting on things on which I am not competent. What I like about him is that he is telling America and NATO to Kiss my _____. Would I vote for him if that is the only thing I like about him? No.

    First of all the "Greater Serbia" is a Media invention of the West and Croatia to demonize the Serbs. In fact it is Croatia that wanted hegemony over Bosnia. In 1978 a terrorist group from Australia attempted to destabilize Yugoslavia but they were killed by the same people that they supposedly came to liberate. In the 1970’s in my part of the world there were three Croat terrorist training camps in BC. Hijacking of planes and assassination of Yugoslav embassy people was common in the sixties. How we tend to forget. Please don’t tell me that Serbs wanted a Greater Serbia because that is absolutely false. The Yugoslav idea was born in Croatia in the nineteenth century but the Serbs paid in blood for its creation.

    Simon America since its creation has used its financial power to undermine other nations to go along with their needs. Remember the “Dollar Diplomacy” Policy in Central America. Remember the Cuban sugar stockpiling in order to depress the price of sugar in order to destabilize the Island economy. Oh yes they have aided Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Argentina, and on and on because it was in their interest to do so. I am not sure who said it, Roosevelt maybe, or Wilson “they are sons of a bitch but they are our sons of the bitch”. Need I say more?

    Common Simon, you ask me to provide you with a cash trail and you provide me with polling statistics. Give me a break! You write “According to the Polls director Milka Puzigaca” all indicators are against Seselj. You tend to neglect to tell me who is greasing Mika’s pockets. I have not seen one polling agency that is not in the pocket of a vested interest and I believe in Santa Claus.

    Mr. Simon Andre has answere the question of the money trail but in your tit for tat with Jari, Gogol Andre and Peter you tend to ignore his brilliant response. Why?

    Yes I have always supported the unity of the Southern Slavs because that is the way my adopted father brought me up. As a History Major at UBC I had brilliant professors, Dr. Conway an Englishman and Dr. Avakumovic, a Serb who taught me to judge people by their character and deeds rather than by their words. Look at the history of the Serbian people in the Balkans and you will see that more of them died so that Croatia can be free, so that democracy is protected than any other group excluding the Greeks. Read the lectures in a book format titled “The Serbs” by an Oxford professor (name is lost) and you may understand my point. Croats Muslims and Serbs once they get rid of the likes of Mesic, Isetbegovic and Seselj they will reconcile their differences.

    As to the Guilty Croats, Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Serbs, Simon, you only need to read the Archives, Andre’s especially, and you will know who should be indicted.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 2:59 am
    Gogol, I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you in favour of continuing the Milosevic trial if the US wants to end the trial in order to wriggle around the ICC?

    Andre, I think my view on Iraq is simply the more justifiable one. Check the JWR article for yourself at http://jewishworldreview.com/0902/halevi.html . It says among others: "Thousands of Israeli health-care workers have been vaccinated against a smallpox attack, a prelude to vaccinating the entire nation". Would all Israelis go through a smallpox vaccination just for the sake of propaganda? On the other hand, if there concern is real, it should be real for all of us, because with smallpox Hussein will not be able to wipe out just Israel but the whole mankind. The suggestion that about Israel attacking Iraq alone is the kind of nitpicking we have learnt to expect from Mr Bonehead. Of course Israel has the right to ask for any outside assistance.

    It would be nice if things were so black-and-white: the US all evil - and hence we must resist all its actions - and the rest of the world good. Don't get sucked up by the conspiracy theories. If you do the words of the former Israeli PM Eban about the Palestinians would describe us: "They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." If you want to win, you mustn't refuse every offer because you think you can't trust those people.

    The trouble is that I have immense difficulty to make up my mind about Bush. Why does he thank Djindic for Serbia's fight against terrorism and yet prolong Serbia's rogue state status? Does he think no-one will notice? It can't be the way Mr Bonehead suggests. Kostunica had come back from the US, so if Bush doesn't write him a letter, does that mean Kostunica is the cause of the rogue state status? Neither can it be that Bush wants to differentiate between the Yugoslav federal government and the Serbian provincial government, because the federal government is also called "Serbia and Montenegro".

    I am not sure what Mr Bonehead is driving at with his anti-Seselj theories. He quotes former differences between the SPS and Seselj, but at the same time seems to suggest that the cooperation with Seselj brings to light some secret motives behind Milosevic's policy. I think we have gone through the motives behind the Seselj nomination. Milosevic has said that they have had differences but now Serbia's interests are at stake. If you don't like Seselj, that is a political choice. On the other hand, you don't have to worry about the choice the Serbs make, because it is their choice. Just holding radical views is not a crime, let alone a war crime.

    Does he just want to show that he can miraculously predict the prosecution's policy, without directly influencing it? Does he want to show us that there are people who think they can think for themselves and yet think exactly the same way as the prosecution? Boy, the prosecution and the like-minded people must be really desperate to target mentally lazy people like us. Does he want to show that the ordinary boneheads are not boneheads but that it is the Serbs and the pro-Serb people who are boneheads, because they think the ordinary boneheads hate the Serbs. I think we have enough first-hand testimonies confirming the anti-Serb sentiments, including Mr Bonehead, who is "strangely silent" about the blocking of 115-million-dollar "aid". He is also strangely silent on the wildly gyrating Serbian opinion polls, which have been shown to say what the outside benefactors want to hear. He is also strangely silent on the fact that an investigation of Seselj doesn't necessarily mean an indictment. But he is also strangely silent on the fact that making common knowledge of the investigation could have an effect on the presidential election. Are you a Muslim or some other ordinary European, or why can't you make sense?

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 5:19 am
    And now for something really important:

    Click here: Logic defeats lies

    Source: http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/Trucks.html

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 7:17 am
    ICTY's Matias Helman showed some uncanny foresight in December 2001, about 9 months ago, when he said that Pavkovic was under investigation but added that this didn't mean he would be indicted. Never truer words spoken. But we remember Pavkovic from another context, and that is the whole point why Pavkovic investigation should be addressed at all. Here you have some hint what are the grounds why the prosecution indicts some people and doesn't indict others. And as to Mr Bonehead's question who should investigate Seselj and others, let me remind you that it is ICTY that does the investigation. It is pitiful for you to turn philosophical when everybody knows that ICTY conducts the investigation. The question on everybody's mind is: why now, and if you, Mr Bonehead, are any closer to the answer than the rest of us, you surely aren't very open about it. Let me remind you that Seselj had offered to go The Hague to meet the tribunal but he was refused a visa!

    If Gil-White's magnificent article shows anything then at least the fact that there are some other mentally lazy people out there. And you can be mentally lazy to accept his theory, because it basically refutes the whole Kosovo indictment on page 1! All the other stories are for those who have an exceptional ability to retain a lot of loose facts that don't form a coherent picture. Let that be your consolation.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 9:19 am
    Simon, tell me please more about my paranoia, I would like to be cured. When I was in Stockholm recently I've met some engineers from Turkey. We were having fun during my stay there, and they were interested to come and see Yugoslavia. However, they asked me is it safe, will they be killed because they are Turks? I thought they were kidding, no, they were deadly serious. The Turks may be more honest and less-mannered then English, but I think the prejudices are the same. English IFOR commander I've talked to in Bosnia has explained to me how before comming to Bosnia he was informed that Serbs live half-naked in the trees, with knives in their teeth. Everyone I've met in Sweden and Finland was claiming it doesn't matter to them where I am from, yet, nobody ever asked me how it was for us in the past 13 years, nobody ever expressed any interest in hearing about or comming to my country (I am talking about ordinary people, not academics). They for sure think of Yugoslavia as a sinkhole, so although they might not be racists, they would believe any evil is possible here, therefore would believe any accusation from the West is just. Not that I blame them, the only people allowed to get out of Yugoslavia were the refugees, preferrably Muslim and Croat (Serbs were denied visas). That was neccessary to keep the wall of silence, to keep the other side from being heard. We were even denied participation in world sports activities. You're rejecting the fact that we've been demonized, when from each foreignor that comes here I hear the same comment that they have never expected the Serbs to be so nice, that they've been fed with lies.

    You call me paranoic, yet your biggest interest currently lies with investigating Seselj, that's your priority in justice. You've witnessed here on this site the amount of misery and injustice we Serbs have suffered. You've taken our land. You've killed thousands of our civilians. You've banished over a million of Serbs from their homes. You've ruined our economy. You've polluted our environment. When you've lost a Milosevic in power as an excuse, you've made us turn over our citizens to your corrupt court. You've promised a fair trial for those. You feel witness lying in court is good enough justice for Serbs. You promised protection for Kosovo Serbs. You let them at mercy of KLA. You claim the biggest problem on Kosovo is that the Serbs are not willing to cooperate, to let Albanians in North Mitrovica, Serb last shelter on Kosovo.

    Yet you claim you love us. You offer us a hand, here let me help you up. Then you say no,no, first get on your knees I wanna see you respect me. Here, let me kick you. What was that you said, "ouch, what was that for?". So you're resisting, huh? You don't see the wisdom in me, you don't trust me? You dare rather to trust in yourself after all I have accused you of?!

    So, it satisfies your concience that there were mass demonstrations against the bombing. That's for you proof enough what common people think and that Serb are paranoid. Let me remind you of gay parades, they are massive enough in UK, should I think that all common people in UK are gays?

    I am not afraid of your people but of your politicians. But only if people of UK would know the truth I could sleep easily. Politicians depend on popularity.

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 9:51 am
    A matching item from Jared on the freezer truck hoax:

    http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/freezer1.htm

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 10:05 am
    War is a disease caused by political action. It is not an immunization against evil. What century are we in anyways? America should be the moral force in the world, but they refuse to take the moral high ground. After World War One they isolated themselves in Fortress America and abrogated their responsibility to shape a better world. Today they are the main horse of the Apocalypse “ardent for some desperate glory”.

    War, for American presidents, is a way of creating a legacy and turning the decline in popularity and a downturn in the economy in their favor. Bush’s planned invasion of Iraq is that simple. West’s policy against Iraq since Britain took it from the Ottoman Empire has been abysmal. The Empire mentality continues with Bush as the new Emperor. He wants it all in the Middle East, oil and the money, and if it takes a war to do it, his legacy as a great president is assured at least for a short time until the Americans realize “Dulce et decorum est” is a big lie.

    Where does Blair fit in all of this? The Blair and Bush dance before their honeymoon, the war against Iraq, reminds me of the Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier dance with Hitler to the music of Appeasement. One beats the drum while the other one sings in the background. They don’t want to do anything without each other. Iraq is no Germany of 1938 and Saddam is no Hitler but the dance duo would have us believe that Saddam is a clone of Hitler. After New York even the chickens in America will believe if Colonel Saunders tells them that he wants to invade Iraq to protect them. You only need to listen to Rumsfeld on PBS when he actually said that Saddam is more of a threat to the world and America than USSR was during the period of Mutually Assured Destruction. JIM LEHRER continued to cluck. To be fair go to the interview at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ .

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 11:05 am
    Why this sudden renewed interest in our lowly discussion from Mr Bonehead? He sure seemed to take it personally when I said that the judge/prosecution team are morons. The same happened with the suggestion that the Dutch judicial system should look into the judge/prosecution team's activities.

    Maybe they don't have the Dutch system in their pocket. That should encourage us to try to make any contact with the Dutch establishment. The Dutch Minister of Justice is Mr Benk Korthals. I am sure you can find the address.

    If Mr Bonehead is really as moronic as he seems, that is a sure sign that he is one of the team. He certainly knows the details of the indictment circus better than any of us. He is a pro.

    His postings about Seselj some time ago were not a lucky guess. He says it shouldn't have been a surprise to us that Seselj is now under investigation. However, Mr Bonehead is the only one who is not surprised.

    But of course, he is not a real person and I have never met him. It doesn't matter if this unreal person says that he has never met anyone with anti-Serb hatred. Who could "Simon Joseph" meet? It is a pseudonym. So he can say whatever he likes, and he does. It is hard to believe that someone is really that stupid.

    Let's suppose he is from the Office of the Prosecutor. We have to suppose this because we are mentally lazy and we can't entertain more possibilities than one. It is a sign of their desperation that he said earlier that the prosecution had managed to show nothing. That would explain why they should now harass us. On the other hand, if his assurances of the lack of anti-Serb bias is any indication, that shows that he doesn't believe in what his anti-Serb work, but he is doing it anyway, because they are all professionals.

    By the way "Bonehead" is not meant as a sign of disrespect. It shows at least that you are not a jellyfish or any other lower life form ("low" is not meant to suggest that these life forms are somehow inherently evil, for instance, I have never met anyone who would think jellyfish are particularly prone to murder.)

    So if you have any questions to the Prosecutor, I think you can ask Mr Bonehead. Me first: Is it true that the prosecution team are really such morons, or is it just the image they have to maintain as public figures?

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 12:48 pm
    Just for the record. Notice the long pause between this and the former message by comparing the times at which they were posted. Quite a difference compared to the hectic discussion yesterday.

    J N
    Finland

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 3:07 pm

    Jari says:

    Gogol, I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you in favour of continuing the Milosevic trial if the US wants to end the trial in order to wriggle around the ICC?

    I think and I repeat the ITCY is utterly illegal, set up by the big powers to exculpate themselves for their crime and to use it , like the Inquisition was once used against the Dutch and Germans, to submit a people and break their resistence.

    The ICC is the oposite, it was created by a large concensus, bringing the protection of the Law to the weak, to the exposed to abuse and in its shape and form it is a threat to big powers hegemony and whimsical policies in their pursuing of the exploitating of our planet and its resources, human and material resources.

    In this context and considering the ICTY was a rather corrupt expression of President Carter policy, foreign policy based on "human rights", policy the Republicans in America have always rejected (Nixon would have obliterated Belgrade and certainly Baghdad), the only use the present administration can make of the ICTY is to set the stage for the failure of the ICC.

    I am surprised the Bush boys have not starved the ICTY already, they have imposed a strict budget as explained by Mr. Wladimiroff (NATO) complains and when months ago Richard Propsper (NATO) toured Europe saying the ICTY should finish its bussines sooner than later, the Bush boys had to accept the fact the idea was not popular in the rest of NATO land: "you had convinced us about the virtues of a show trial, and show trial we shall"

    Mr. Milosevic case should had been dismissed 10 dayss after the start, when it was clear the prosecutor, the clown and comedian, had nothing to show but hearsay: but aha, there is a curtain in these guignol's theater which is never raised and yet the press speaks of the educational weight of a show trial.

    It is like the Russian proverb: "We shall see, said the blind man"

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO) & (UNILATERALIST)

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 3:29 pm
    Bogdan

    Thank you for you informed and passionate post

    I think you have made many assumptions about me.

    For the record I don't support NATO's involvement in the Balkans and I don't support the ICTY. What I do support is the investigation of all allegations of war crimes even when it does not sit comfortably with my own view point or politics. Having met many Serbs, I lived in west London and there was a Serbian cultural centre near by, I've found them, well just like any other UK ethnic group, ordinary hard working and fun to be with.

    Yes your right Serbs have suffered and so have all other ethnic groups in the Balkans as a result of Nato and the UK governments interference, I'm angered, ashamed and embarrassed by this, what can I say?

    I still say that those people that I have met do not express the view you hold of the Average Brit and of that shown to you by, what we here in the UK would call a "chinless wonder", the Ifor Comdr.. Your absolutely right that in the western media Serbs were and to a degree are still demonised but hand on heart here, my personal experience is that your not viewed as evil, barbaric or racist murderers by Joe public here, Albanians however are viewed as undesirables,pimps and drug dealers. If you think that just because people don't enquire of you "how it was for us in the past 13 years" shows they don't care, I think you would be wrong, most Europeans know what it was like to live through a war, W.W.II is recent history, relayed to us by grand parents, through the class room and on TV weekly if not daily, I for one don't need to ask what it was like for you, I know it was hell.

    Back in 92 I had a young 17 yr. old Bosnian Serb, Dusan(sp?) working for me, he was here illegally and lived with his older sister. His application to stay in the UK was turned down, rather than return he took his life, his sister told me why after the funeral, so yes I know some of the suffering of the Serbs and more particularly his family.I was told of events that I believed were crimes against humanity ,since then more crimes have been committed by ALL sides, Nato then compounded this by committing their own war crimes in the name of humanitarianism (BHAH!) So yes I want all these allegations looked at, KLA,Serb,Croat,Bosniak and NATO. I absolutely will not accept any bulls**t that belittles any allegation because some one sees their cause as somehow more politically correct. justice for all I say.

    "Politicians depend on popularity"

    Not here in the UK, I'm sure Mr Taylor will have something to say on this but at the last General election, Blairs party gained around 35% of the vote, but the voter turn out was way below 70%.( % from memory) but none the less the Blairites are hardly a "popular" party in the real sense of the word.

    I've not been able to give this response the time it deserves, short of time at the moment but I did not want to be accused of not responding at all.

    Respect!

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Thursday September 19, 2002 at 3:33 pm
    Mr Trkla, Walter if I may?

    I've no bone's to pick with your first two paragraphs,the pre 60s stuff is new to me and I thank you for that

    "Common Simon, you ask me to provide you with a cash trail and you provide me with polling statistics. Give me a break! You write “According to the Polls director Milka Puzigaca” all indicators are against Seselj. You tend to neglect to tell me who is greasing Mika’s pockets. I have not seen one polling agency that is not in the pocket of a vested interest and I believe in Santa Claus."

    Ok it was unfair of me to ask for a cash trail and I'll agree that given the US financing of the last poll its highly likely they are doing the same now. If you dispute the findings of Milka Puzigaca maybe you'll let us know why instead of attacking me for not including Milka's financial CV.And your source for " particularly at the time when Seselj seems to be the popular choice." is what?

    "Mr. Simon Andre has answere the question of the money trail but in your tit for tat with Jari, Gogol Andre and Peter you tend to ignore his brilliant response. Why?"

    Because it was just that"brilliant". I read it, sat back and thought "he's right they did it then and in all probability they are doing it now" It was a silly question on my part, sorry. I never thought to post a "pat on the back" for Andre maybe because I was feeling ever so slightly silly for having asked for the obvious. "Croats Muslims and Serbs once they get rid of the likes of Mesic, Isetbegovic and Seselj they will reconcile their differences."

    I whole heatedly agree, but under one state, I don't know, maybe this is too much to ask? "As to the Guilty Croats, Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Serbs, Simon, you only need to read the Archives, Andre’s especially, and you will know who should be indicted."

    So you agree entirely with Andre? Mr Nousianen

    "Bonehead"? ah well if it make you feel superior, do you want a nick-name too? :) "Why this sudden renewed interest in our lowly discussion from Mr Bonehead? He sure seemed to take it personally when I said that the judge/prosecution team are morons." I did? when was this? My only dispute with the moron term would be its not preceded by bloody!

    "His postings about Seselj some time ago were not a lucky guess. He says it shouldn't have been a surprise to us that Seselj is now under investigation. However, Mr Bonehead is the only one who is not surprised." You not read the Miloseevic indictment then? He not mentioned as a member of the so called "joint criminal enterprise" does not the ICTY purport to investigate criminals? Mr Nousianen, your a true oracle, a giant of a man with an intellect to match, I'm truly impressed you've sussed me, I'm Carla DeLponte and I'm here because my case is failing, my creds as low as whale sh-t and I thought if I won you and your pals over I could save the day.:)

    I'm sorry I don't wholly agree with your views and I'm upset that your upset enough, you feel the need to make stuff up about me.

    I'm hurt, deeply, but I'll get over it maybe over the next weeks and months I'll regain some of the respect I held for you:)

    Simon [aka Bonehead] Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 12:40 am
    Jari & Carla (a/k/a Simon - you're SO busted!!):

    Even if you perhaps did not intend to do so, nonetheless thank you so much for cheering me up at the end of a hard day. Your exchange cracked me up in a very good way, not common at such bloody serious forums. Laughter has a therapeutic value - maybe we should do it more often.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 12:44 am
    What's all this bold stuff? Chalk up one more mystery. Good night all.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 12:50 am
    Before I forget:

    Gogol, excellent post. The proverb is not Russian though, but Hungarian. The original goes as "Majd meglatjuk, ahogy a vak is mondta". It has no matching equivalent in Russian to the best of my knowledge.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 3:31 am
    Let's see, Mr B.

    I can't find Pavkovic mentioned in any of the Milosevic indictments, yet he was under investigation in December 1992. On the other hand, the "joint criminal enterprise" that was mentioned included "Slobodan MILOSEVIC, Radovan KARADZIC, Momcilo KRAJISNIK, Biljana PLAVSIC, General Ratko MLADIC, Borisav JOVIC, Branko KOSTIC, Veljko KADIJEVIC, Blagoje ADZIC, Milan MARTIC, Jovica STANISIC, Franko SIMATOVIC, also known as 'Frenki,' Radovan STOJICIC, also known as 'Badza,' Vojislav SESELJ, Zeljko RAZNATOVIC, also known as 'Arkan,' and other known and unknown participants."

    How can you single out Seselj from this list of "known and unknown participants" so confidently and just at the right moment? Why now? Maybe Seselj wasn't under investigation earlier, because it was rumoured he would testify against Milosevic? But how could Mr B make the connection so readily? His rhetorical question: "Does not the ICTY purport to investigate criminals?" (and the deliberately bad English which he uses in the sentence) only shows that he knows he is really "SO busted".

    On the other hand, Pavkovic was under investigation, even if he was not mentioned in any of the indictments, because his services were needed to gather evidence. That is why the investigation didn't mean "that Pavkovic would be indicted". (Matias Helman didn't even say "necessarily indicted" according to Beta. Mr B sure knows his stuff.)

    Notice how conciliatory Mr B has suddenly become. A couple of days ago he wrote:

    "Support for a POV that differs from your own does not nessesarily indicate 'bovine placidity and intellectual laziness' but could point to support, that is thought out, and based on the personal benefits gained through your nations acheivement of its goals. Mankind has always treated morals as disposable. If the general populace were that placid and lazy, you and yours would have won your battle as 'thinkers' a long time ago. As it happens it appears that those with your views/morals/politics may well be being out thought, scary!"

    On the other hand, now he even agrees the judge/prosecution team are "bloody morons". Is that now the well thought-out position? Maybe he was really trying to "win me and my pals over," because that could have saved his day.

    He again fails to make sense when he says: "Maybe over the next weeks and months I'll regain some of the respect I held for you."

    What respect? Isn't it obvious that he was "deeply hurt" already, maybe at my suggestion that the prosecution team are morons - maybe not. Sure, his words were a response to Andre's ("The public by-and-large is more inclined to follow the convenient soundbites in their bovine placidity and intellectual laziness"), but that should not be a reason to take it as personally as he obviously did.

    And Mr B, don't think you can make me feel as if I owed you anything for your "respect". That is only one of your cheap shots that are so familiar with.

    Also notice his studied sarcasm. He says: "And this should bring a smile to your face" when he breaks the news that Hague drops Bosnian Croat genocide charges against Milosevic.

    Have you practised that sentence before the mirror, Mr B?

    He also says: "Don't you just love that last paragraph" when he refers to the explanation that the changes are an attempt to bring the trial to an earlier conclusion. Why the sarcasm if he really agreed with us that the prosecution are bloody morons?

    Mr B, I didn't say you were Carla, did I? It is interesting you should bring that up. If I had meant Carla, I would have said "Mrs Bonehead", wouldn't I? Or maybe you chose to become "Mr" Bonehead, instead, so you could think you could outsmart us. Maybe you really wanted to feel superior, which is now what you are now accusing me of. Besides, I thought I said it quite clearly that "Bonehead" was not meant as a sign of disrespect. I think you are blowing this out of all proportions. Or did you really think I had the obligation to call you "Simon Joseph", who is kind enough to tell us that he lives in "Amman Valley"? Besides, aren't you still "strangely silent" about the things I pointed out?

    But back to business. If the Americans want to end the Milosevic trial, I am not sure what makes you say no. Of course there are strings attached, but if there weren't, you should get really suspicious. And now that chronology seems to matter so much, let me ask you when Bush prolonged the rogue state status. Wasn't it in May? A lot has happened since then, among others the support for the invasion of Iraq is eroding. The situation lives the whole time and you have to live with it. Bush sent his letter to Djindjic this week to express his gratitude for the Serbs' role in the fight against terrorism. So these two documents are clearly contradictory with each other, but there might also be a general trend. The reason the rogue state theme was suddenly revived is because the Congress thought they would withhold some more money. But what the Congress does is not what Bush does. And the Congress has learned to take its marching orders from the ICTY, which might be why it now marches to a different tune than Bush. Notice how our representative of the international community, Mr B, tried to bring Bush's letter into line with the Congressional policy. I don't believe that. There must be a reason why Bush took the risk of contradicting himself.

    I am not elated by the Iraqi campaign but I can see the point. In fact, it would be inappropriate for me as a non-American to express any emotional support, but that doesn't mean I can't support it. So I would say: "Bush, you are on the right track but do something about the ICTY quick!"

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 4:10 am
    Read this article by Srdja Trifkovic. It goes into some of the legal points we have discussed on this forum but fleshes them out a bit more. http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/
    Trifkovic/NewsST032000.htm . I am glad Mr B decided to be on our side, because that the right choice.

    Let me correct myself. I should have said in the previous posting that Pavkovic was under investigation in December 2001 not 1992. And mind you, I wouldn't have known that if it weren't for Mr B. No-one would.

    J N
    Finland

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 4:22 am
    Before you start idealizing the Russians (or belittling them, depending on the viewpoint), don't forget that they can bargain too: "Russia has asked the United States for economic guarantees worth tens of billions of dollars, plus help getting into the World Trade Organisation (WTO), in return for its support in the campaign against Iraq."

    This phenomenon is called Planet Earth. It is a bargain.

    J N
    Finland

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 10:13 am
    Question:

    How can a "joint criminal enterprise" include "other known and UNKNOWN participants"?

    I mean if they are unknown to start with, how does one know that they part of the said "criminal enterprise"? But then again, the Prosecution's psychic powers may be limited.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 10:41 am
    Very well put, Andre. There is something really fishy going on here, to start with Mr B. He enters this discussion with the pseudonym "Simon Joseph" and raises the issue whether Milosevic's proposed nomination of Seselj as a presidential candidate might have any impact on Milosevic's case. This week we hear that Seselj is under investigation. In comes "Simon Joseph" again and instantly denies that this investigation has anything to do with the presidential campaign. Does seem a bit self-contradictory, doesn't it? No, he says, it was all in the cards. When the Bosnia indictment came out about a year ago, it should have been clear to everybody that in about a year Seselj would be under investigation. And the timetable of the investigation was predestined. It couldn't have been put off by a couple of weeks until the presidential election was over. And then comes Mesic with his big mouth and says his testimony will have an effect on the election. And still Mr B denies everything.

    Why would he deny the obvious, unless he had something to hide? Why would he have something to hide, if he didn't feel guilty? Why would he feel guilty, when nobody has accused him of anything (until now)? If he blurts out his guilt like this, he should be under investigation himself. Maybe it's Freudian: an irresistable urge to be caught. Then it doesn't matter if he is one of the prosecution morons or some other morons. At least he is some big shot. Can't you here the "don't-you-know-who-I-am" tone in his voice? And yet he doesn't answer his question.

    Well, you couldn't have predicted the Seselj investigation. Take the known and unknown participants. Take Pavkovic who was not mentioned in an indictment at all (unless it was under the "known and unknown category"), yet was under investigation. Judging by Mr B's conduct, he had a hand in the developments. I don't know what is his problem. He wants diverging viewpoints on this forum but doesn't contribute anything beyond the cryptic. Maybe he wants to believe that some freethinker would arrive at the same conclusions as the prosecution. He just throws us ideas and tests their plausibility. But why would he do that until he is from prosecution or close to it?

    Calling his colleagues "bloody morons" doesn't show anything. I could call all the participants on this forum morons. After all, they are my "pals". I'm a moron, but I would be "deeply hurt" if someone I don't like called me a moron. Sure, Mr B went a bit too far with his criticism of Del Ponte, but I think at this stage that is the least of his worries.

    It is at least nice to here that he has such a lot of compassion to the Serbs. It doesn't seem to bother him that they are starving. Can't be helped. Let's save them by indicting Seselj. After all, we are trying to save the Serbs. But the dumb Serbs don't get it. They think the tribunal is picking on them. The story about the suicide was tragic. It reminds me of Mr Nice's crocodile tears at the end of the trial when he told about the Bosnian rape victims.

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 10:57 am
    By the way, even if we can agree that the prosecution are bloody morons, we are not in agreement whether the failure of the case is their fault or not. I insist that they failed, because they had nothing to start with. In that case, they shouldn't have started the case or should have started in a much lesser scale. But there seem to be those that believe that a good lawyer can do miracles with little or nothing. These are those who have the need to hide their own crimes by accusing the Serbs, and when the plan fails they take it out on the prosecution, which to me seems to be even below baseness.

    And now the prosecution is trying to hide its tracks by embarking on this investigation orgy against the Serbs! This is not going to end well.

    J N
    Finland

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 11:11 am
    Simon, you don't have to thank me for my participation on this forum. There is some inner need in me to write here, something that keeps me obsessed to the point where I neglect my other duties which may cost me my highly-paid work. I am one of the rare people in Serbia that can boast of having a good job and aside of other things good internet connection and ability to travel abroad. I've always considered it my duty wherever I am to perform the role of an ambassador for my country, I think that in theese bad times each Serb in the world must try to perform this role. Our strength is not in our military, economic power or powerfull allies. Our stength is truth, truth about what happened, who we were, who we are. Those who are our true enemies know that very well, and they want to take away that weapon, to disarm us, to substitute it with a cynical distorsions that will leave even those trully neutral with feeling of 'inevitable', 'mad', 'tragedy for all', 'war is hell' picture, in which none and everybody is to blame, and NATO put a merciful stop to it by stopping the strongest side. WRONG PERCEPTION! The wars on Balkans ARE NOT a tragedy for all, they were NOT inevitable, there was nothing MAD about those who made them. Stop leading us to the wrong conclusion that if sufferring of Croats=suffering of Muslims=suffering of Serbs, then we should be happy with a conclusion that goals of Croats=goals of Muslims=goals of Serbs and guilt of Croats=guilt of Muslims=guilt of Serbs. Croats have wanted their own state, conveniently enlarged by Tito, they wanted Serbs out of it. They've sold their soul to the devil (NATO) to do it, as they've sold their soul to Hitler in WW2. All of the subsequent suffering of Croats and Serbs in Croatia was caused by the course they've taken and solely is to be blamed on Tudjman and his followers. I see absolutely nothing wrong that the Serbs in Krajina have stood up against being forced to live in a Nazi creation of Croatia, very similar in it's ideology to the one they've suffered from in WW2. For the whole duration of war Serbs in Croatia were only defending the parts where they were majority, their ancestral lands, they didn't come out of Serbia and invade Croatia as it was presented by your media. At the beginning they didn't even want the separation from newly-created state of Croatia, they wanted authonomy, they wanted their rights protected as the constitution of the new Croatian state has declared them minority, and they were being fired from jobs because they were Serbs, so they loose their means of life support and have to leave to Serbia. They didn't just jump into a nationalist frenzy out of hatred that they felt towards Croats, they were made by Croat authorities to feel unwelcome at their own land. When the war broke out, they fought valiantly and bravely against more numerous enemy, they've managed to keep their positions and managed to keep status Quo and long lasting cease fire, with UN shield between the sides. THEN NATO CAME AND BOMBED SERBS IN THE NAME OF PEACE, MADE THEM LEAVE THEIR HOMES, MADE ETHNICAL CLEANSING OF CROATIA FINALLY BE EXECUTED BY CROATS IN IT'S TOTALLITY THUS FINISHING THE WORK HITLER STARTED AND CROATS HAVE BEEN DREAMING ABOUT!!! All of you who talk about reconcilliation, oh how naive you are. Croats, even now when they've got all they wanted out of this war, still find reasons to keep hating us and feeling they want to hurt us more. Each day during the bombing of Serbia by NATO, on Croatian news, at the end of the broadcast they would wish "A clear sky and a nice weather in neighbouring Serbia". The recent interview of Croatian sea turism workers showed that 100% of interviewed people told they would rather have their capacities empty and not earn a cent during the season than have Serb tourists back. It is not said in vain that the money drills where drill cannot, but sometimes even that fails. If you look at the area of business, the goods exchange between Croatia and Serbia now that the trade links have been re-established has a proportion 1:4. So, Serbs buy 4 times more Croatian products than Croats buy Serbian. Most of the Serb products bought by Croats are the ones they don't have their own substitute for. If you want to talk about reconciliation, go ahead, but you're wasting your time on the wrong side. We never wanted Yugoslavia to break apart in the first place. But if you mean that we should forgive without even being asked by Croats to forgive, like we did after WW2, and even that we should ask them forgiveness, that we should cover ourselves with ashes and blame it all on our leaders forget it, it's not gonna happen. If this court was ment to make us guilty of wanting Greater Serbia it miserably failed. There is nothing wrong in punishing the war crimes, but why do you inflate the numbers? Why are you so selective, why you are again acting impartiality, but in fact pressing only Serbs to deliver war criminals? (here by 'you' I mean West in general not you as a person)

    Simon, don't worry, I don't have bad assumptions about you. The fact that you are participating here is alone worth admiration. You have your views and you're not afraid to show them even if they will be exposed to very tough critics. It is very good for the purpose of discussion to assume a standpoint different than of majority in order to see what will survive criticizm, and what will fail, so you have a better grasp on truth. It doesn't neccessarily mean you don't agree with the everything said so far.

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 12:14 pm
    Andre

    Yes my brevity was intended, how could I take Jari's accusations seriously. In my very fist post here I stated what I thought of the ICTY and Milosevics alleged guilt at this phoney court, I also so said that any variance from the agreed view here would release the hyenas, Jari stepped into that role with relish :) I happen to agree with many of his views and those of most others here, but I do have an agenda and that is justice for all, regardless.

    I have been lurking around various Balkan and ICTY related newsgroups and discussion boards for about 1yr now, I've learned a lot, confirmed some of my beliefs and changed others, this is my first active role in any debate, to me the whole subject is addictive though I do find some theories difficult to comprehend (should have stayed in school past 16 :( ).

    Now, Seselj and my current fixation with him(there will be others). Allegations have recently resurfaced and the ICTY has announced they are investigating him, most here, rightly point out that there is a political motive behind the timing, but there it ends, no-one has to my mind asked is there any grounds to the claims and if so what are they, why?

    Seselj came to my attention more or less from day 1, mainly in connection to his call for a greater Serbia and his links to paramilitary groups, so when he pops up as a presidential candidate with Milosevics support I think "?" This man is (how would you put it Jari?) a defacto co-defendant of Milosevic and one of the few senior, pre 2000 Yu politicians to publicly claim Milosevic is guilty of war crimes and that he would go to the Hague and tell them(source is lost)he also claimed the plans for the Bosnian war were made in Belgrade

    These are some of the allegations levelled at Seselj:

    Seselj, as leader of these Serbian paramilitary formations, reportedly took part in ethnic cleansing, mass tortures, and killings carried out in 34 municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Seselj's paramilitary units reportedly took part in mass killings in Bratunac, Brcko, Prijedor, Visegrad, Zvornik, and Bijeljina. Seselj's followers also ran Sonja detention camp in Vogosca.

    Since 1995 the Serbian State Security Service has been conducting a campaign against the criminals who used to work for it, but are now only unpleasant witnesses to crimes. The body of "White Eagle" Miodrag Djordjic-Johnny from Kragujevac, who in 1996 informed foreign media about the role of Radmilo Bogdanovic and SDB in supplying paramilitary formations, was pulled out of the Morava River in September 1996. He drowned after someone shot him with a 9 mm gun in the head while he was fishing. In late October 1996 Dragoslav Bokan, a leader of the "White Eagle," was arrested in connection with a robbery which took place four years previously.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/white_eagles.htm

    We all want a President for Serbia who will stand up to Nato/US but is Seselj Presidential or criminal and if the later, what then for Serbia should he gain office?

    Walter

    "Please don’t tell me that Serbs wanted a Greater Serbia because that is absolutely false."

    This does not tally with some of my readings, don't get me wrong here, I don't advocate that this wish for a "Greater Serbian" state is wrong, provided its with consent not war, why not.But (here's that man again) Seselj included it in his manifesto of 91 and again I think of 96. In 91 prior to the "Greater Serbia" manifesto he gained 96.277 votes in the Presidential poll, this raised to 1.125140 / 1.730581 / 1.222381 / 1.378097 during the various polls of 97. I hazard a guess that there were some Serbs, many refugees from Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo maybe that did wish for a Greater Serbia and voted accordingly. Given their treatment in other area's of Yu who can blame them?

    As a foot note, Seselj never published any method other than a democratic one to achieve this aim.

    Mr Nousianen

    The Amman Valley is a rather beautiful area of South Wales, named after its market town Ammanford (Rhydamman), I know I'm real my names on the cheque book that I pay all the damn bills with. Now you can try and wind me up with you childish jibes but I'm made of stronger stuff so please yourself. Your an intelligent man, I can see that, I'm only a motor mechanic and one time employer, self taught no college or Uni. but I have views and I should be free to air them without the fear of ridicule from those who should know better, its not that I take it personally, I'm disappointed knowing the usual level of debate here. Of course if your an intellectual elitist and consider I bring the level of debate down to a level beneath you, kindly ignore me.

    Now, nuff said?

    Simon [aka Bonehead] Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 2:34 pm
    Bogdan

    Thanks for your kind words, its nice to see you not using Jari's crystal ball and tea-leaf reading with regard to my reasons for being here.

    Correct me if I wrong but I get the feeling you think reconcilliation is not going to happen in the Balkans, how then do you see the future?

    I started off with great faith in the ICTY but this evaporated when after what seem like a 15 min investigation they dismissed allegations against NATO, where do you now see justice comming from, home courts?( Serb, Bosnian, UK etc) There's certainly no noise comming from Kostunica's Yu version of the South African truth and reconcilliation commision, whats the news with that, closed down already?

    Just stepping back a day or so and your comments re tourism to Serbia, thinking back the only Yu destinations I ever saw advertised in UK (pre war) was the Croatian coast, Split etc. I was looking for info on likely places to stay a while back, but there's little on the net.

    I have never travelled, my wife has, but I have a major phobia about flying and break out in a sweat if I even think about it, silly eh? But my wife and I are planning a 3mth "Grand European" driving tour in 2004, Belgrade and Split are on the list. Ever been to Wales? I met a Montenegrin last year who thought it some what like home but not as green.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 2:42 pm
    Simon

    Do you know anything about Krajina, and Bosnia? Have you heard for the "State of Sloveinas Croats and Serbs" formed October 31 1918, If so please explain? Do you know how Croatian border has been made, who made it and when? Do you know the borders and history of Serbian land and people? What did you mean when you speak about "Grater Serbia"?

    Pero Peric
    Canada

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 5:01 pm
    Pero

    If your looking for a history lecture your asking the wrong man, I know what in terms of your (assuming your of Balkan heritage) knowledge is very little about Bosnia,where Croats and Muslims fought Serbs, then everyone fought Muslims. Krajina where Serbs were either ordered to leave by their own or cleansed by Croats. The Kingdom of Serbs (1918-1929)an allied concoction, Tito and his boarder manipulations of 54(?), So if you don't mind I'll pass on that particular mine field

    When I say "Greater Serbia" I mean a state that includes all the neighbouring lands of other states where Serbs were the majority. As Seselj's party put it in 91:

    http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9803&L=twatch-l&P=R39183

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 5:12 pm

    Simon Joseph, don't miss this oportunity to take the History lesson, it is more relevant than you think; see once upon a time in the seventh century . . .well, I will let the natives tell it.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO) (UNILATERALIST)

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 5:35 pm
    Gogol

    I'm happy to read and learn, what I'm not about to do is trip myself up with what even I think is my limited knowledge of Balkan history. I have read so much about the arrival of the Slavs in the Balkans, who the Albanians were or were not related to and who converted who to what, why the Croats see the orthodox as heratics and why the orthadox see the catholics and muslims as traitors to the true faith. I have had major problems seeing the wood for the tree's as every faction has what to me appears credible source's for their claims. I concluded, some months back that they all must have at least some Slav blood in their vains.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 7:26 pm
    Simon: "Croats see the orthodox as heratics"

    Actually no. The Orthodox see Roman Catholics as heretics, which is true. Croats can't have an upper hand there, theologically speaking, so they resorted to some kind of cultural superiority complex, and regard the Serbs as savages. Why? Desperate inadequacy and identity loss. The Croats always hated to be Slavs, imagining that they are Germas of sorts, and projected that self-hatred onto the Serbs. But that's a long story.

    Peace all.

    Andre Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 7:26 pm
    More re Krajina

    Seen this recent article, smells like panic in the ranks:

    Washington Times: Hold the Hague accountable

    http://213.191.154.38/default.aspx?c=306&lang=eng

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 7:40 pm
    Andre

    "Question:

    How can a "joint criminal enterprise" include "other known and UNKNOWN participants"?"

    Yep your right either they knew the whole story or they didn't, if they didn't what are the doing in court, making it up as they go? "I mean if they are unknown to start with, how does one know that they part of the said "criminal enterprise"? But then again, the Prosecution's psychic powers may be limited." Ah psychic powers, just like those displayed by Jari ;-)

    Sorry cheap shot, I'm only human.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 7:57 pm
    Andre

    Yep I see your point, Orthodoxy was there first, but (trying not to sound too argumentative)

    From WordNet

    heretic

    n 1: a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church [syn: {misbeliever}, {religious outcast}]

    2: a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field (not merely religion)

    Respect Bro!

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 9:14 pm

    Religion was the pretext, the really diferences were and are economical.

    Foreign powers used religion as the tool to intervene, gain influence.

    The base of any society is the economy, the religion, culture, customs but not the language are part of the super-structure.

    Language is independent and operates on its own . . .

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn, USA (NATO) (GLOBAL)

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 9:17 pm
    Simon. Truth & reconcilliation comissions in Serbia would be capitulation to NATO. Milosevic is working hard to prove he was right. Kosovo was lost under his watch and to let it go without a fight would be a crime. Finland lost Karjala to the USSR, and to this day they resent it. Slobo has a chance to at least let the world know that the might of the US. split his homeland, not any fault of the Serbs.

    Pertti Lindroos
    Quesnel
    BC Canada

  • Friday September 20, 2002 at 11:38 pm
    (Free Serbia) Carla went to visit Milo.She was concerned about his health,and wished him a speedy recovery.I tought they were not on friendlly terms.

    Vasile Ianos
    NJ

  • Saturday September 21, 2002 at 7:59 am
    Pertti

    Milosevic is ONLY doing a good job in the eyes of those who have the time to follow the trial via the court feed on the Net, have you seen the mass media coverage?

    There is a need, in my mind, for a for a public Balkan forum where the truth is told independant of US/Nato influence, where the "truth" tellers are not employed by NATO/ICTY. Such a forum would be a thorn in NATO's side. Winnie Mandella's crimes came to light via the SATRC why not NATO's by way of the BTRC?

    Big lies are built upon small lies and silence, take away the silence and the whole lot will come tumbling down.

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Saturday September 21, 2002 at 11:01 am
    Simon says that he does not know the history of the Balkans since he left school at 16. I think that is BS. Several posts back I intended to ask him to lay his cards on the table but Jari beat me to it. I think Simon is Name Withheld reincarnated. Yes Simon you are right, Seselj is an enigma who was arrested by Milosevich five times. This alone according to your assessment of Seselj should exonerate Milosevic.

    Simon you are fishing and I am biting so later in this post I will attempt to give you a short history of the Serbs, even though, I know that you probably know it better than I.

    Simon your comment about Dusa is touching. It reminds me of people who say that they have a black friend and as a result they are not racists. Furthermore, that comment is an innuendo saying that the Serb Diaspora is full of guilt ridden Serbs that are suicidal because in the past they have committed atrocities that they can’t forget. Is this a hint that Milosevic, the Serb will commit suicide because the Slavs have a Dark Side to their psyche?

    Simon I still stand by my post that the Serbs did not covet a grater Serbia; they just wanted what was theirs. If you examine land registry of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire you will see that the Serbs owned 80% of B and H in fee simple. If you also examine population statistics just prior to WWI you will see that out of the population of 1,900,000 people in B and H 1,820,000 were Serbs and Croats. When Seselj calls for a Greater Serbia, you Simon, go back to painting all the Serbs with the same brush, back we go to “birds of a feather flock together”. Even though, I don’t believe that in a polyglot state like B and H it is possible for Serbs or any other group in B and H to have self determination why is the West promoting self determination for everyone except the Serbs?

    Simon you complain about Jari calling you a “bonehead” but it seems to me this is just what you want him to do. You sign your post Simon [aka Bonehead] Joseph. This reminds me of a schoolyard bully saying “I dare you, I double dare you”. Leave it be Jari he is taking you away from what you are good at, exposing lies that Simon seems to try o camouflage with his good guy bad guy posts.

    Bogdan, in your post you address my hope for reconciliation and after reading what an intelligent man has to say about the future in this part of the world, my hopes are dashed like toothpicks in a cyclone. I hope you are wrong. I know the hurt that you feel, because I feel it as well. During the bombing and the conflict in B and H I was an emotional basket case. I wonder if the likes of you and I are, as is said in Herzegovina “praznu slamu mlatimo” threshing empty straw here but it is good catharsis.

    Bogdan, I also know that the Croats joined the Serbs, both after WWI and WWII because they knew that if they did not Croatia would, geographically, be a “piss hole in the snow”. Croatian history is one of inferiority complex, since they only had a state for a short time back in antiquity. This inferiority complex during WWII and even now has gone to the point where they even imitated the German language by stringing words together. For example, during WWII they called a belt “okolotrbuhapantalodrzac” or ‘aroundthestomachpantholder”.

    Bogdan, I am not suggesting that the Serbs turn the other cheek for the third time; however, I am suggesting that they must take the higher moral ground as they have done every time in the past. The locusts have devastated Serb lands from East and West and the Serbs have recovered in the past and they will recover once more from this desolation. The price was horrendous in human suffering and life lost of both sexes and the backbone of the nation, the peasant, has never submitted to slavery.

    Well here I go Simon, a history lesson in a nutshell. I have bitten hook line and sinker. I know that you want to tire me out but that is OK, catharsis you know helps me sleep, so I apologies to those who know the history of this region.

    According to the map of the Crusades, by Professor Clark of the University of Kentucky, Serbia in 1095 to 1291 encompassed the area of present day Bosnia (Neretva River to the North West, Adriatic Sea to Skadar in Northern Albania, Kosovo and parts of present day Serbia to Belgrade and Sava River to the North. The division of Christendom, the Great Schism, divided the Christian Church into Orthodox East and Catholic West with the demarcation line through the center of eleventh century Serbia. For the Serbs the great schism has proved a great tragedy. The Serbs to the West of the schism line were converted to Catholicism, thanks to the Jesuits, while those to the East fought to stay Greek Orthodox.

    There are three geographic area that one can call Serbia. These are Serbia proper, Old Serbia and Serbian Macedonia. Serbia proper is located around Belgrade; Old Serbia includes Sandjak, Kosovo to Bosnian. Macedonian Serbia includes Skoplje and most of Kosovo where much of Serbian history and religion is centered.

    The location of Serbia at the crossroads between the East and West was the land bridge for invaders in both directions. Romans, Germans, Austrians, Franks, Russians, Britons and the Ottomans wanted control or influence over the Balkan Peninsula. Invading armies used this corridor to pass through or they controlled it so others will not pass through. History is cyclical and Anglo Saxons led by America are on the march again as are the Russians. The New World Order requires control over this strategic corridor and Serbs are in their way.

    As I mentioned earlier, many Serbs live outside of Serbia in the lands to the West, the lands that were initially settled by them on their arrival in the Balkans. Here I speak of Bosnia and Herzegovina where at the start of the twentieth century out of one million nine hundred thousand inhabitants most of them were Serbs.(1917 stats New Europe). After the defeat at Kosovo and the Turkish confiscation of the lands of the nobility the peasant population, what was not enslaved, taken into harems, or sent to Turkey to be trained as Janissaries, settled in the borderlands of the Austria Hungary, in present day Krajina, Banat and Backa where they became border guards for the Empire. As long as Serbia remained “SERVIA” the Empires did not strike back.

    Serbia was conquered by the Turks in the fourteenth century (1389) and Belgrade fell in 1521. The “Guardians of the Gate” against Islam experienced their Dark Ages. From a race of painters, poets and law makers they descended into slavery and the only way out was to convert to Islam.

    The Turkish rule was oppressive. The blood tax, the harems, the tribute and if you resisted the “trklja” a sharp pole on which those who resisted were impaled through the rectum. These poles were placed at river crossings or in front of town gates so that all that passed saw what happens to those that resist.

    Two forces saved the Serbs from extinction; the Orthodox Church and the gusle. The Turks did not overtly force Islam on the subject people. They gave them a choice Islam, tribute or the sword. Some Serbs and Croats converted to Islam and became the bureaucracy, gentlemen folk living in the cities, the raja or peasants paid tribute and were allowed to go to their church.

    The second influence in this Dark Age of the Serbs was the epic poetry that allowed the people to dream of salvation by mythical supper heroes like Marko Kraljevic, who on his winged horse Sharac, provided protection and killed Turks by the thousands single handedly. These songs were sung to the accompaniment of the gusle, a single string instrument that wailed the lament of the poetry. The songs were learned by heart, and people in a late evening would gather around the guslar to listen to myth and reality of the golden age in their history.

    I learned these songs myself from my adopted father in Canada. He had a pleasant voice, and trips in the car usually meant him singing songs about Kosovo. It is through these songs that I first learned about Kosovo and the defeat of the Serbs. In his late eighties my father and my Croatian father-in-law, who was my father’s age, would sit in the apple orchard in Kamloops and play a game called “shije” where one exposes certain number of fingers trying to match the other. When they tired of this game they would start a duet singing the old songs about Kosovo. My father-in-law knew them by heart as well. One can see that these songs were passed down from generation to generation.

    These songs were a link between the past and the present. They told every Serbian child not to forget the past, to work so his people will be free again. The mothers, in the image of Kosovska djevojka , the Kosovo maiden were taught to sacrifice for the day of freedom. At every christening of a Serbian male child in Herzegovina the mother would say “One more son for Kosovo”. The mothers were reminded, what is one son in comparison to the sacrifice of the great mother Jugovic who sacrificed nine sons in the Battle of Kosovo.

    The church and the songs were a link with the past, the hope rested in Montenegro which was populated by Serbs who lived in what the Turks called the Karadak. Crna Gora as the Serbs call it remained free after centuries of war. The saying “put a Montenegrin in a desert and he will act as a warrior, put a Bulgarian there and he will turn it into a rose garden” tells you that life of a Montenegrin was a life of constant warfare. Some anthropologists suggest that Montenegrins are the tallest people in Europe because the small and weak were killed in battle. Darwinian, natural selection at work I would assume. Italian king, I think it was Emanuel, married a Montenegrin princess in hopes of having tall children.

    In Sumadija outlaws, and from Krajina hajduci or uskoci (modern day guerillas) attacked the Turks. This gave people hope and rebellions started in Herzegovina and other parts of the Turkish Empire. Dubrovnik played a key role in the life of the Serbs. Traditions and culture was saved in this walled fortress and her merchants spread this culture and hope for liberty among the Serbs, along the trade route towards Constantinople. The hope for freedom also rested in Dalmatia, which was controlled by the Vatican and had a large population of Serbs who settled there in the fourteenth century. The guerrillas used these areas as sanctuaries after attacking the Turks in the interior. Same was true of Krajina, Banat and Backa, which were the borderland between Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. For example, the great Serbian inventor Tesla, his mother’s family, the Smiljanic’s, were officers in the military district in Krajina.

    As you can see Simon the Serbian aspiration for freedom were controlled by Austria from the north and the Ottomans from the south. The British supported the Ottomans while the Germans supported the Austrians and added to this mix were Russians. Tsar Nicholas’s grandmother was a Montenegrin. Montenegrins are well known for their boasting and they used to say “Us and the Russians are an alliance of one hundred and eighty million”. The population of Montenegro at that time was little over three hundred thousand. Russian interest in protecting Orthodoxy, warm water ports and expansion into the Mediterranean added a volatile mix which exploded into WWI.

    Serbia lost one person in three in WWI and Wilson would have given them the Greater Serbia that you speak of Simon but that was not their agenda. Croatia’s reason for joining the new Kingdom was self preservation. Actually the Yugoslav idea was championed in Zagreb as I said before in a previous post, it was paid for by Serbian blood. Post WWI generation of Serbs, Croats and Muslims, who lived in North America, the generation that I know well, shared their common heritage like my father and father-in-law.

    The rise of fascism in Europe, and political instability and infighting in the government in Belgrade, led to the popularity of the Ustase movement in Croatia. Assassinations and other violent acts by the Ustase undermined the unity of the Kingdom. When WWII broke out Greater Croatia was a reality and the Serbs, Jews and Gypsies paid the price that even the Germans were ashamed of. Over seven hundred thousand Serbs were exterminated in the Croatian concentration camps at Jasenovac and Gospic and much of the killing was done by priests and nuns. Those that they could not convert they killed.

    Simon, I visited Yugoslavia several times and once went to Krajina and went to several village graveyards looking for tombstones of relatives of some Canadian friends, and you know Simon in two of these villages, in one area of the cemetery all the people had died on the same day. Need I say more? In the Italian controlled Dalmatia the Serbs fared better because Italians did not allow the killing in the areas under their control. In 1943, as the Russian armies were knocking on the German door the Croats saw the light and started to join Tito and the Partisans. WWI all over again, save ones ass and join the victors. Once again the Serbs paid in blood for the creation of post WWII Yugoslavia

    After WWII, Tito wanted to create a balance between the republics and attached Istria, Dalmatia and Slavonia to Croatia and took Kosovo and Vojvodina away from Serbia. Simon since this is for you, I have posted previously what took place to destabilize Yugoslavia in the post WWII period. Here you are Simon, history lesson in a nutshell and I am sure others will dispute this but that is history. Simon my catharsis is over at least for today. Yours without prejudice.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Saturday September 21, 2002 at 1:13 pm
    Walter

    Excellent stuff, thanks. Some of it I had read, much of it is new to me but you have certainly added meat to the bones of what I did or thought I knew. It explains the passion I see in many Serbs when talking of recent events.

    "Simon says that he does not know the history of the Balkans since he left school at 16. I think that is BS." Its not that my understanding of Balkan history is limited because of leaving school at 16 its that I feel I lack the education to fully comprehend some of the therories you guys explore to explain events, some of it goes over my head and no matter how hard I try I fail to make sense of it.

    Dusan had nothing to hide, he was a victim who(in short)had seen both parents murdered and been told to leave his village and never come back or he'd be skined alive(as his sister put it), I don't understand how you could twist this into I think that because he was a Serb he had some dark past and was guilty of some horrible crime, he was nothing but a frightened kid for Gods sake!

    "I think Simon is Name Withheld reincarnated."

    What? "Yes Simon you are right, Seselj is an enigma who was arrested by Milosevich five times. This alone according to your assessment of Seselj should exonerate Milosevic."

    Wlater, I'm asking questions about Seselj, no-one seems to want to answer, instead they seem to want to attack me for doing so, whats so wrong with adding another facet to the debate? As for Milosevic, exonerate him from what the bullsh-t in the the 3 trumped up indictments, come on Walter do me a favour, I have to wonder would I be fending off all the bull had I entered the debate with "What do you guys think of the Gotovina inditement and the US claims they had nothing to do with operation storm"

    You and Jari have made claims about me, I'm not going to try and change your minds anymore its a waste of time but for the record:

    Some views I think we share:

    NATO/US/UK and Germany were the cause of the Balkan wars.

    ICTY is not a court its a holding cage for scapegoats and more often than not those scapegoats are Serbs.

    I ask a few question about Seselj and suddenly I'm Baalzebub's evil older brother, what gives?



    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Saturday September 21, 2002 at 8:48 pm

    I like Walter's history of the Serbs and that is probably the way I will tell it to my grand children when ready to understand it.

    I like to add the importance of language since when Croatia longed for nationhood the lack of an specific different national tongue create some problems. There were in Croatia two dialects of Serbian as well as Serbian widely spoken and failing to adopt any of the two dialects, for obvious reasons, Serbian was to become Serbo-Croatian or the national language of both Croatia and Serbia.

    Macedonian, a language since 1944 was considered the oldest Serbian dialect and disputed by the Bulgarians, an Slavised folk of Tuckish or Atar origin.

    Tito created Macedonia

    The piesme of Kosovo are epic songs as important as the French and universally known Chanson de Roland or the Spanish poema del mio Cid

    Also, krajina frontier land, advanced guard: the name tells it all.

    Who controls the past controls the present, and who controls the present controls the future

    ignorants of the World awake!

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO) (HEGEMONIC)

  • Saturday September 21, 2002 at 10:01 pm
    Justice for all regardless.

    Simon: If only. This will not be achieved by the seagulls of the ICTY picking on the sardines behind the trawler and ignoring the sharks: to mess up a phrase from the great MU philosopher/footballer Eric Cantona.

    Do not be fooled by del Ponte’s dissembling. It is some four years now since KLA terrorists committed massive crimes of abduction, torture and murder in Klecka and Glodjane: And subsequently ethnically cleansed Kosovo of its minority population, murdered some two thousand of them and confined the remainder to ghettoes: While given the protection and thus tacit support of Nato. First del Ponte promised indictments later in the year now it is by the end of the year. Next she will be replaced and absolved of her false promises.

    Despite Blair’s hollow rhetoric of a ‘war on terror’ Nato will never allow significant leaders of KLA terror to be tried in The Hague. Nor those leaders who ordered the murder and mutilation of innocent Serb women and children by dropping dumb cluster bombs from a height of three miles onto hospitals, schools and residential areas.

    Does anyone here understand the logic of this one time pacifist and CND campaigner when prior to 9/11 he supported Islamic terror and contributed to it: When post 9/11 this master of portrayed sincerity now vows death and destruction to Islamic terrorists - yet commits no comment let alone any corrective action for the Islamic murder and mayhem in Kosovo and its borders? Indeed having created this bloody mess Blair is now about to withdraw his troops.

    Milosevic may well have a higher motive but true Celtic blood does not flow in your veins if, like Milosevic you were betrayed and facing life imprisonment, you would not want to promote an opponent to those who betrayed you.

    Give me a good reason for making a big fuss about the sardine Seselj when the KLA and Nato sharks are allowed to swim with impunity in their blood filled sea. As far as I am concerned it is a question of priorities: First things first.

    Concerning your comment that mankind has always been selective about its ‘moral’ principles. There are two kinds of world the powers that be may create. That which is “Nasty, brutish and short” based on ‘moral‘ principles changed at will to suit sectional interest: Or a relatively civilised society based on law: Law, and only that law, which is based on the principles of justice. Two pillars of justice are Truth and Impartiality.

    Yes Simon the British electorate has been disenfranchised. The choice is Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Deee Even worse parliament has lost control of government. We live in the age of the New Labour Dictator and his spin machine.

    While I read a few press reports and heard a few radio reports on the mass marches against the bombing of Serbia I saw not a single video report on any of the four standard TV channels, including BBC1 and BBC2, that I subscribe to.

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Sunday September 22, 2002 at 6:53 am
    Peter

    Nice post, I can see your point re "first things first" now, though I'm still in favour of putting all allegations under the microscope regardless of the size of the shark they are attributed too. One of your quote's comes to mind, 2 wrongs don't make a right, just because the spineless buggers at the ICTY won't look into Nato's crimes is no reason why we should not look into allegations against Seselj, admittedly a much smaller fish

    Two other points:

    I don't have Celtic blood in my veins, maybe that colours my views?

    I recall seeing several reports re the mass demonstrations, the only source I use for tv news was and is BBC News 24. This was one of the things that got me more interested in Kosovo and thus the Balkans, I recall at the time thinking " we never had this level of opposition to the Gulf war"

    Simon Joseph
    Amman Valley
    UK

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 3:30 am
    Yes, you speak with authority. Never anything like "I heard" or "I don't know" or "maybe I am wrong". No, you know. Compare this to Mr T, who knows a whole lot but never advances any legal interpretations but only presents the facts. You certainly made a bold statement about the Seselj investigation based on your reading of the Bosnia indictment. And now you speak as if you knew that that is the statement the prosecution will put forward. It is now a dogma.

    You are so confident on it that you still deny your earlier claims about the connection between the presidential election and Milosevic/Seselj cases in the ICTY. You now claim that your interest in Seselj had already started in 1991 and the presidential election should be seen in this light, not in the light of the Milosevic case, as you earlier suggested. And you still don't say that you might be wrong or even uncertain.

    On the other hand, he doesn't say any one of us is wrong. He says: "I'm sorry I don't wholly agree with your views." That is lawyer talk, especially when accompanied with the assurances of "respect". However, he admits that it was his intention to win "me and my pals over" when he says: "I'm not going to try and change your minds anymore its a waste of time but for the record: Some views I think we share..." I don't think his changing our minds was so much about his identity as about our views. Maybe his real identity would make us resist his programme.

    I instantly make the connection with our old friend Hardoz Nails. You even say that you are "made of stronger stuff", so that must be part of your self-image. Mr Nails said his father was a barrister but he wasn't an intellectual himself. Now we hear that "Simon Joseph" is a motor mechanic. Suddenly his spelling has improved since it was suggested that he might be working for the prosecution. One noticeable difference is also that this time he isn't leaving so easily. Last time "Simon Joseph" said he "exits the debate" so easily that even I with my psychic powers was surprised. But that makes his reentrance doubly surprising. This time "Simon" has made up his mind: he will stay. (Besides, "Simon Joseph" doesn't have to be the same writer all the time, does he?) Why? Does he think the exit would be seen as a sign of admission that he is who I think he is? Remember that he now has experienced how his long pause on Thursday was interpreted. And he has become remarkably conciliatory since I suggested that he works for the prosecution, as if he feared that his statements would bring the ICTY into a bad light (while on the other hand using some exaggeratedly foul language about Del Ponte who we really admire and who is suddenly concerned about Milosevic's health). Somehow I think "Simon" will stay on this forum at least until the presidential election is over.

    Hardoz made some interesting points about the freezer trucks. It is fantastic that he floated the idea that 100,000 corpses were transferred with the freezer trucks to Serbia proper. After we convinced him of the absurdity of the notion, the prosecution settled for showing pictures of motor vehicles.

    "Simon", nobody has to take my word for it. There are people who are paid to do these things. And you must admit that if the people, who I take you for, did what I think they did, they are in really deep shit. We can keep on talking, but remember that the prosecution has now made history by making Fred Abrahams's e-mailing to Milosevic appear as evidence in court.

    So according to your view, we should now say: "We don't know much about Seselj (and most of us certainly don't) but we know that he is the president of the SRS". Robert, who broke the news, didn't even know he had been in the Yugoslav government! So we should say (with Robert): "Seselj was never ever before in any way connected - even by the West - with any war crime charges, I do not even think he ever held any position in government." But we should immediately add: "Now wait a minute. I think I saw his name in place 14 in the Bosnia indictment, paragraph 7, where it says:

    The joint criminal enterprise was in existence by 1 August 1991 and continued until at least 31 December 1995. The individuals participating in this joint criminal enterprise included Slobodan MILOSEVIC, Radovan KARADZIC, Momcilo KRAJISNIK, Biljana PLAVSIC, General Ratko MLADIC, Borisav JOVIC, Branko KOSTIC, Veljko KADIJEVIC, Blagoje ADZIC, Milan MARTIC, Jovica STANISIC, Franko SIMATOVIC, also known as "Frenki," Radovan STOJICIC, also known as "Badza," Vojislav SESELJ, Zeljko RAZNATOVIC, also known as "Arkan," and other known and unknown participants.

    Paragraph 22 says (and note this well):

    Vojislav SESELJ, as President of the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) from at least February 1991 throughout the time relevant to this indictment recruited or otherwise provided substantial assistance or support to Serb paramilitary units, commonly known as "Seseljevci" or "Seselj’s men," who perpetrated crimes as specified in this indictment. In addition, he openly espoused and encouraged the creation of a "Greater Serbia" by violence and other unlawful means, and actively participated in war propaganda and spreading inter-ethnic hatred.

    Mr B doesn't refer to this paragraph in his posting but he still manages to paraphrase the above paragraph 22! He says:

    Seselj came to my attention more or less from day 1, mainly in connection to his call for a greater Serbia and his links to paramilitary groups, so when he pops up as a presidential candidate with Milosevics support I think '?' .

    Let me ask you: Day 1 of what? Day 1 of the release of the Bosnia indictment? It doesn't sound like it. It sounds as if Mr B had managed to paraphrase the words in the indictment at the time that Seselj came on the political scene 10 years before the indictment.

    You may have no Celtic blood in your veins, but nobody should question your Britishness. When you say that mankind has always regarded morals as disposable, I agree with you, if you mean by "mankind" the British government. If you say that the British government has always regarded morals as disposable. And the only reason you should bring that up is because you think this government regards morals as disposable and is quite right in doing so. But if that is so, what the hell does the British government need this tribunal for? Does it want to play on the fact that the general populace is so placid and lazy as to believe in morals? It seems that the only reason to make this kind of statement in a discussion on ICTY is because you are a lawyer, or at least your father was a barrister, and you think that a fair trial is an illusion anyway. This is in stark contrast to the Dutch government, which resigned over the NIOD report (I am sure you know what that is), and to my mind, the Dutch government is now the best hope of the placid and lazy people like us. It is an absolute disgrace that not only are the chief of the prosecution team and the presiding judge of the same nationality, but also that this nationality should be British! One has to wonder what the proportion of the British is in the entire OTP staff (if that should one day prove a useful bit of information).

    Mr B. I would like to know one thing. Who are the "anti-Serb boneheads" that you don't want to be taken for, if you deny that such people even exist?

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 7:04 am
    Following URL is probably of interest to members of this list:

    http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue33/walls33.htm


    Frank Tiggelaar
    Amsterdam
    Holland

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 7:21 am
    The problem with criticising the ICTY, and the so called West, is that it blurrs the issue, at least what the serbia is concerned. Yes, the tribunal might be biased, and the goverments in the west might be hypocritical far too often - but is there any doubt that Milosevic - not to speak of Kradzic and Mladic - is responsible for serious crimes against humanity? And that he did it for us, the serbs, and often with our silent approval? And I see no real alternative to taking up these issues then the ICTY (regretfully, i might add, for the best thing would be to try him in YU; can we imagine that?)One should bear in mind that the opinion in Serbia is still far too chauvinistic and revisionist, it denies to confront the past, it sometimes denies any wrong-doings in the YU-wars, although the evidence of this is plenty.( I suggest a look into Vreme web-site, in order to catch up with a now long ongoing debate on "serbia confronting its past".) The problem that the participnats of this discussion should be aware of, is that their arguments, their eloquent pinpointing of legal mistakes and political bias on the side of ICTY are being misused by many to conclude that serbs did nothing wrong - a dangerous conclusion ! This i say notwithstanding what others did: on the contrary, sweeping in front of one´s own doorsteps, ie in serbia, will make pointing at others even more effective. And one particular thing: discussing the truthfullness of the witness saying that he saw, with his own eyes, a baby brutally killed, is not only beyound the range of experience and knowledge of the participants of this discussion (how on earth can you tell whether he is lying or not?), it`s also morally disgusting!

    Nebojsa Matic
    Oslo

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 9:07 am
    OK, that's it, I can't take it anymore, I'm out of this discussion, it's too much for my nerves. Congratulations, Nebojsa, you have prooven to me that the CNN PR machine can count on Serbs as well as any other nation's ignorant assholes in the world to support it's goals. There will never be a way for people like you to grasp the whole picture, you will always get stuck on details especially provided for weak minded as you are to get stuck upon. Yes, the truth is too hard to bare, it's much easier to find a scapegoat. The one already on trial is ideal, since you can have your feeling that "justice" is being done that way. It's much harder to bare the fact that true criminals are laughing at you and raping your country and your people, and will never, ever face the punishment, at least not in this life. Your demagogy is so weak, so tasteless that I don't even find a strength to answer to it, but I'll try not because you can be convinced, but just to take this anger out of me. You claim that Serbs are too chauvinistic and revisionist that they deny that there were crimes commited by Serbs? WHERE THE FUCK, HOW THE FUCK YOU GOT THAT INFORMATION!? FROM CNN??? FROM NGO's??? I don't know ANY Serb, I've not heard ANYONE who would state such a thing, it's hard for me to imagine that such a moron would exist in my environment.

    "The problem that the participnats of this discussion should be aware of, is that their arguments, their eloquent pinpointing of legal mistakes and political bias on the side of ICTY are being misused by many to conclude that serbs did nothing wrong - a dangerous conclusion !"

    Dangerous to whom? What will happen if Serbs indeed conclude that the evil that was made by their forces comes out to be much less than CNN and ICTY want you to believe, that it didn't resemble anything remotely justifying the NATO involvement, and subsequent Serb suffering and losses? Serbs will get mad? Big deal. You know perfectly well that we don't pose a threat to anyone, our military in this shape would find it a hard task defending itself from Albania, were they to attack us or us to attack them. But as I said, I've lost an appetite to discuss any further. You're not alone, Nebojsa, the number of Serbs who give up and believe the most convenient lie is alarmingly increasing. We cannot live with a hatred towards the whole world so we hate ourselves. Again, I am referring to a metaphor of a molested child - it will also most likely come to conclusion that it is all it's fault, that it is a bad child and is being punished for that by superintelligent and "we know what's good for you" sadistic parents.

    Bye to all and thanks, you gave me a piece of mind, I know that there are some decent people out there who feel my pain and my thirst for justice.

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 10:44 am
    Wow! Now, Bogdan, this is really too much; far too many big words, and shaky emotions; anyway, why are you "leaving" the discussion? Because of me? As far as i can detect, i am in a clear minority-position here, plenty of decent people around you on this site, or what? I am very much concerned about my country - those are my sole motives and driving force. As for CNN brainwashing me: how very wrong you are, and to prove this, I`ll tell you that i am a book publisher who last year brought out a book in Norway which was highly critical of CNN and ICTY (may be you`ve heard of it, the english version goes under "Degraded capability")and, accordingly, "slaughtered" in the main-stream press here in Norway. As for serbs who might subscribe to my point of view, that is, the view that serbs need confronting their past in spite of what is being done against them - I am proud to say, are such names as Srdjan Popovic, Petar Lukovic, Lazar Stojanovic, and many,many others. Not exactly morons, or what do you say? I guess you didn`t really mean to call me an asshole, even if you found my contribution to this discussion far too much?

    Nebojsa Matic
    Oslo

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 11:04 am
    Bogdan, From Jari's post, "There are people who are paid to do these things." Who can say that Nebojsa Matic is not one of them.

    D. S.
    US

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 11:27 am
    Chauvinistic Serbs?? The same words and well tested expressions used by the various Karic,Biserko with the ultimate goal to deprive the Serbs of the last thing they have: the pride.

    Serjoe b
    Italy

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 11:43 am
    Simon Your answer to Serbian history failed. That's why I asked you these question about Krajina, Bosnia "The State of Slovenians Croats and Serbs" and "Greater Serbia".

    Walter Trkla gave you an excellent answer.

    "The State of Slovenians Croats and Serbs" you mixed with "The Kingdam of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians" which was formed on December the first 1918 (a month later).

    You will find in Slovenian history that "The State of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs" was in fact the argument for theirs (Slovenian) selfdetermination, which lead to their State in 1991. - Why Serbs in Krajina and Bosnia did not get the same rights as Slovenians?

    Simon from these two Slovenian history pages(http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/
    slovenia/slovaf1.htm)(http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/
    slovenia/slov-national-history.htm) you will notice that their soverign state history started with the creation of that state. Then you can notice that Slovenians got the whole state and it was expanded even in 1947. Croatia got the whole Krajina - even though Krajina existed during Austro-hungary as province with more privilegies than any other non Austrian province.

    Croatia gained after WW II Adriatic coast, Islands, cities Rijeku and Istria. Ethnic's Serbs and Croats converted to islam were awarded State in Bosnia in 1992, but remeber "The State of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs" included all as name says: Slovenians Croats and Serbs and the teritorry of Slovenia, Croatia Krajina and Bosnia.

    You realize that Serbs are the only ones who were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and Krajina.

    Once more: Before existance of "The Kingdam of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians" was formed; Serbs had soverign state in Serbia and in "The state of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs".

    Even Serbian history (in Belgrade) neglect that state that lasted abuot a month. -see their explanation at: http://www.mediaclub.cg.yu/eng/news/
    archive/2002/mart/15serbia.htm

    The point is: If the Serbs from Bosnia and Krajina never joined Serbian Kingdam they would have their soverign state in "The State of Slovenians Croats and Serbs"

    Now Simon do you notice what is "Graeter Serbia" When you compare what is today with what was in 1918 you will notice that Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia expanded mostly on Serbian land, and Serbian victories in First and Second World War.

    Today we see in Hague all Serbian political represenatives from Serbia, Bosnia and Krajina - but as I can see only they(as Serbian representatives and people that they reperesented lost their states.



    Pero Peric
    Canada

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 12:04 pm
    "There are people being paid to do these things"? What things? You sound like a bad american movie. Relax a bit, all i want is to discuss.

    Nebojsa Matic
    Oslo

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 12:17 pm

    Mean while back at the ranch: click HERE and see how Serbia is treated . . .

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO) (HEGEMONISTIC)

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 9:03 pm
    Whoopee !!! Fresh blood. Nebojsa, will you please give me your theories on why Islamic millitants would be involved in the KLA and Bosnia. Why did the CIA finance wars in the Balkans? Where is Jamie Shea now to explain his lies that kept the bombing going?

    Pertti Lindroos
    Quesnel
    BC Canada

  • Monday September 23, 2002 at 11:51 pm
    To Nebojsa and Bogdan: Here is the perfect example of ongoing dissemination of Serbian corpus, so well represented in media portraits of Mr. Kostunica and Mr. Djindjic in the light of incoming elections. Think of what you have stated on this post and you will find out that there are more then one view that you find in common. Diversity is our greatest strength. Do not turn it into disgrace. Do not represent our nation in that light. Need I to remind you that posting here have a broader meaning. Bogdan, I can understand your anger, for I too find most of Nebojsa post outrageous, but let the man speak and be judged by participants of this forum in the light of his own words. And please do not stop posting because Serbia needs voices like yours. Nebojsa, I know that it is hard to make a carrier in publishing when you are not a mainstream, but do not take it at the expense of your own people. I agree with you that Serbian forces committed war crimes, but ALL sides committed them and stating that they were committed in OUR name proves Bogdan point that CNN is a major source of information for you. I simply don’t buy it and nor should you, cause weather you see it or not that is a driving point of ICTY and western media campaign against Serbs. COLLECTIVE GUILT OF SERBIAN NATION VERSUS INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILLITY. I for one do not buy it. It is very hard for everyone who did not live in Serbia under Milosevic to understand why so many Serbs think that he should be tried. I agree with you and so are Bogdan (read the archive), but his alleged crimes (which yet have to be proven) falls under category of Internal Affairs of Independent State; nowhere under jurisdiction of court with prefix International in its name. And please do not EVER mention the name of Srdja Popovic (who cried for bombing of his native city Belgrade in western press as early as 1992). I agree with you that he is not a moron, for morons might find themselves offended. SAMO SLOGA SRBIJU SPASAVA ONLY UNITY SAVES THE SERBS.

    Miroslav Radulovic
    NYC
    US of A

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 12:30 am
    Nebojisa please remember Voltaire when you feel offended by some idiot on this page. I am sure that some consider me an idiot but that is OK. I sometimes feel like an idiot sitting at my computer but lies are being told about Serbs world wide and people are making money with those lies. We need to expose them.The worst thing is when one lies to oneself like Nebojisa. VOLTAIRE SAID “I MAY DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY BUT I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT” or some such thing like that.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 3:13 am
    I think we now have two people missing: Hardoz Nails and Simon Joseph. That's a pity, because I hadn't finished yet. If Hardoz is a bit like Simon, he must be "lurking around various Balkan and ICTY related newsgroups and discussion boards". If his name has been taken in vain, he should be able to speak for himself. So where is Hardoz? Don't be shy! You see, Mr B, if you refute my points, you now need two characters, and that may tax your energy too much after a hard day at the garage. Or is it getting too childish even by the standards of my "childish gibes"?

    Don't you know Hardoz? Sure you do, if you have been lurking around these forums since July 23. And I know you have, because you mentioned the trial of Gotovina, which was mentioned in this discussion the first time on April 23. Or is that another one of your lucky guesses? On the other hand, you didn't seem to recognize "Name Withheld", who appeared about those times.

    Hint: this is a discussion on the Milosevic trial, so any insistent efforts to turn the attention to Seselj or even Gotovina will bet greeted with suspicion. So maybe you could give us your opinion on how Milosevic is doing compared to the prosecution.

    And who is Mr B? He said he asks "a few question about Seselj and suddenly I'm Baalzebub's evil older brother". That is quite a coincidence. On August 1, I wrote: "So I think the criticism concerning May's and Nice's English background may well be on point." And at the end of that paragraph I quoted William Golding's "The Lord of the Flies".

    The joke is that "Baalzebub" means "the Lord of the Flies". So maybe Mr B means that he is either Nice's or May's evil older brother. Of these two, Nice is a prosecutor. And it is interesting that, just last Friday, I mentioned Mr Nice's crocodile tears over the Bosnian rape victims.

    On the other hand, if you really are a motor mechanic, you should be flattered when you are taken for the chief of the prosecution team. Do you feel flattered, Mr B? I don't think that would describe your reaction, when you make jokes about my crystal ball (nobody should make jokes about my crystal ball).

    It took him one day to refute my claim that "He is a pro". That may not be too bad, but let's see one of his postings. It reads: "Hague to indict Kosovo Albanian this year | 21:11 | Beta ." Let me talk as one hobbyist to another. Would you share me your secret and tell me where you get that "21:11". It was obviously followed by another message a minute later: "Hague drops Bosnian Croat genocide charges against Milosevic | 21:12 | SRNA ." You have some sophisticated news sources for a self-taught motor mechanic.

    And let me tell you that your sarcasm, studied or not, was badly misplaced. It doesn't bring a smile on our faces when we hear that a Kosovo Albanian will be indicted. If you were one of us, you would say that now they try to do the very minimum to keep up the appearances of justice. The same comment applies to the dropping of some of the Bosnia charges. You see, by being sarcastic about the things the prosecution would be sarcastic about (and we can see through that) you just give yourself away, and you become a target of our sarcasm.

    The same could be said of your comment: "If the general populace were that placid and lazy, you and yours would have won your battle as 'thinkers' a long time ago." Most of us never believed that we would win our battle. At least, no-one ever said that we would win it in the short run, let alone "a long time ago". I expressly stated that if these kinds of forums are going to have any effect, it is going to happen in the long run. And luckily, the trial seems to take longer than expected, no matter what changes are made in "an attempt to bring the trial to an earlier conclusion", which we were supposed to love.

    On the other hand, if you were a prosecutor, wouldn't you be crazy not to lurk around the discussions on the Internet? At a certain stage you might not be able to resist the temptation to participate. Especially when you can't solve the "case". And why make such a moronic lie about the motor mechanic, if you were not a prosecutor?

    "Simon Joseph" supports justice for all. Why does he do that if he says that mankind has always regarded morals as disposable, and seems to support this claim too? He says that Serbs are treated badly, but that is tough, because the Albanians are now treated as pimps. Is this latter view now an excuse to continue the anti-Serb trials? Or could it be that the obvious anti-Serb bias of the tribunal only brings about a reaction against the Albanians? Like in "Casablanca", when someone says "round up the usual suspects", we know that those guilty will never be caught.

    But it seems that "Simon Joseph" supports the present British government, just like Hardoz Nails supported the New Labour. In fact, Mr B might be quite close to it. Why else such a tirade: "Support for a POV that differs from your own ... could point to support, that is thought out, and based on the personal benefits gained through your nations acheivement of its goals." And what really brings this close to Blair is the next sentence: "Mankind has always treated morals as disposable."

    But is it possible for a prosecutor to make the latter statement? That is not all. I think showing such "support" to "your nation's achievement of its goals" is bad enough in such a supposedly impartial function. And how about oiling, so important for a motor mechanic? What's that talk about "personal benefits"? No wonder Mr B wants to give some respectability to what he is doing by starting to moralize about the prejudices against the Albanians (not so much about the drug trafficking and prostitution).

    Mr B seems to have admitted all the minor criticism that have been levelled against him. He has improved his spelling after I pointed out that his English is deliberately bad. After I suggested that he has that "don't-you-know-who-I-am" tone in his voice, he proceeded to addressing us on the first-name basis. I rather preferred being addressed as Mr Nousiainen, just to see a foreigner spell my surname correctly every time. Not bad for someone who left school at 16. And jugding by the choice of your pseudonym it seems that you have done your homework on me too, haven't you? At least you never suggested I was using a pseudonym.

    So what does it matter who "Simon Joseph" is? That depends on how seriously you take the views that he says he shares with us. These are 1) NATO/US/UK and Germany were the cause of the Balkan wars. 2) ICTY is not a court its a holding cage for scapegoats and more often than not those scapegoats are Serbs.

    This time Mr B seems to keep floating the idea of a truth commission. I suppose he means it for Seselj. It would be more appropriate to suggest that the ICTY were abolished and a truth commission were established to look into its activities. But we know that this won't happen until Blair resigns, and that is something that will be unlikely to happen. So I guess the only way to proceed is to start a criminal investigation of the ICTY. By the way, that is what I meant when I said that there are people who are paid to do these things (but as the master of recap, D.S., pointed out, the problem is the word paid: who can you trust?).

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 4:53 am
    Dear com-debattants: I have sympathy for Bogdans emotions (yesterdays posting) because i too have felt the frustration, and still feel it; and i share his concern with what he called "the raping of (our own) country". I recognised myself in his lamentations from some time ago that his concerns far too often go at the expense of his professional and other duties, just as mine do. (In the same vein: i too feel like an idiot sometimes sitting at my computer, just like Walter). So we do have things in common ... and i agree that diversity is a strength. I don`t want to preach, of course, also because i live abroad. But i am concerned that the critique of ICTY and the internatioanl community and the Milosevic trial CAN blurr the very simple fact that Milosevic and Karadzic and Mladic and many others should be tried as war criminals. And that many of our compats applaud(ed) them, (remember applauding the tanks on the streets of belgrade? T-shirts with Karadzic slogans all over FRYU?). And that we (the serbs), first and foremost should deal with that fact in a righteous and calm and humanistic and legal manner. And that confronting one-selves might provoke some GOOD sides in us, like establishing a respectable corpus of (political) thought on subjects such as crime, jurisdiction, war-morals, etc, etc. And that in doing so we will be in a BETTER position to criticise and deal with "others".And that what "albanian" or "croats" did or are doing to serbs does not exempt the criminals among us from responsibility. And the fact that if the serbian goverment had the guts, the know-how and the morals to put some of the alleged war criminals on trial (i say put on trial, not sentence, mind you ...)then one MIGHT have been able to tell ICTY to buzz off. Also: dissecting the witness-accounts is a legitimate court practice, shure, but i pledge that one shows some decency.Some of it MUST be thrue. I was initially disgusted by the treatment that "baby-kiling" got on this site. Collective guilt? Of course not, but maybe collective responsibility? I don`t know. And one more point i want to make: I think there is a distinction between discussing the ICTY, the permanent war tribunal and the western arrogance AND the serbian self-confronting, and consequently, good neighbourship with the surrounding people. It really doesn`t help the serbs to establish the fact that americans are arrogant ad limitum, if we are surrounded by people who think that slaughtering people is a question of semantics. And: nobody needs patronising, including me, Miroslav. Also: I don`t watch CNN. Walter: there is no need to bring Voltaire so early, perhaps you`ll regret it? Pertti: That is another issue, related, yes, but i`d still say another issue.

    Nebojsa Matic
    Oslo

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 6:45 am

    "The necessity of saying something, the embarrassment produced by the consciousness of having nothing to say, and the desire to exhibit ability, are three things sufficient to render even a great man ridiculous"

    Voltaire

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Conn. USA (NATO) & (DECLINING)

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 7:05 am
    Well, it's not exactly Nebojsa's post that got me so angry. It's the amount of time and energy spent here by me that seems to be in vain. It's not my goal to discuss the issues with those already seeing my point of view, although I'm grateful to them and appreciate and enjoy their educated comments. It's my illusion that we could actually convey our messages to the masses, to those who are being suspicious of the official version of truth, but don't have deductive powers or enough information or motivation to figure it out and to take a stance on these issues. Then, after several months of posting appears a Serb on this site and annulates everything written so far, taking us right back to the beginning. He also makes some ridicullous claims that we should be ashamed of our doing, that we are igniting further Balkan wars by our immoral questioning of Serb guilt. We're somehow blurring the picture, according to him, we produce smoke screen for Serb devils who will then avoid the mighty hand of justice and make more wars. He's willing to cast a first stone at his own people, to set an example that Croats and Muslims and NATO will follow in ave. He will be quite surprised when not only his example is not followed, but he didn't even earn the respect of these nations. No-one should doubt that Mladic is a war criminal, he says. Why then there are courts neccessary in your opinion? To torture a man by giving him a hope that he can prove he's innocent? I don't know about his alleged crimes, but I know that my cousins who fought in Bosnia for the duration of whole war have every respect for this man and regard him as a hero. There would be much more Serbian villages slaughtered if there wasn't for him.

    Simon, about your little fish game and Seselj, here, I'll try to convey to you how I feel about it...

    Imagine an alternative course in history. Hitler won a WW2. Germany set up an international court for war criminals in Hague. The international community led by Germany, Italy and other axis powers puts the pressure on GB to deliver the war criminal Winston Churchil and his criminal gang, for his crimes of firebombing the German cities, and especially igniting Dresden. So, would you then consider it a justice that a herring Churchil is sent to Hague while big fat shark Hitler amuses himself in his Jew-free enlarged Germany discussing with his SS officers who of the Brittish politicians they will have indicted next. Would you feel like a nation of heavenly angels, taking the upper moral grounds cleaning up your courtyard, or would you feel like prostituting yourselves, your pride and your country to the morally inferior Germans giving them right to judge you.

    And look how the headlines in Western press tell us to feel. When Milosevic was handed over the papers were sure to put it in a form "Serbs delivered Milosevic for 200 million dollars". Nobody mentioned altruism as a reason for Serbs to do it. Demonization goes on, now we're not barbarians anymore, we're prostitutes. When the so-called evidence about freezer trucks was uncovered by our police, Carla del Ponte was quick to announce that the recent evidence uncovered by Serbs will not be taken into consideration, although now it's their 'strongest' card according to some. The point was not to give any credit to the Serbs. If you must credit them for something, say they did it for the money, or say they did it too late, that they have not honestly did it but because of pressure applied.

    OK, it seems I'm stuck here after all... well, I made a promise to myself not to visit the site until I finish what work I have.

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 8:53 am
    Gogol: Touché, i might say. And Bogdan: it seems you have problem with big words: i can´t see how is it that i "annulate" the contributions on this posting; not only do i agree with many here on criticising the ICTY and the ongoing trial; my dissent with some of the content here is also, i humbly think, a tribute to the discussion. As for the educating the masses: i don`t know about you, but i put my money (a lot of it) and my face where my mouth is by publishing a controversial book (and by giving it away to many people, some of them quite foes to the enterprise). But the issue here is not me ... Your interpretation of what I`ve posted here is quite simplistic, i dare say. As for Mladic: OK, i wasn`t there, and besides, he too should of course have the benefit of doubt (which i awarded him, at least grammatically by putting a question mark at the end of the sentence), but let me " rephrase" your cousins` respect for the man and the opinion that he saved many serb villagers from being slaughtered: could it be that he at times actually contributed to the opposite ?

    Nebojsa Matic
    Oslo

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 10:21 am
    Please tell me MR. NEBOJISA MATIC why I will regret quoting Voltaire? I have said nothing on this post to be ashamed of, nor have I said anything here that I don’t believe. You can find me, however, just go to Google and put my name in but after reading his post today I am sure Nebojisa is fiction just like his posts. How do I know? Nebojisa lives in Norway. His posts are full of spelling errors such as simple words like “true” which he spells “THRUE” and yet he uses such words as “lamentations” and phrases such as “in the same vein” words like “diversity” “corpus” "semantics” “patronizing”. I have translated for Muslims, Croats and Serbs on hundreds of occasions, I might say for free, documents, court appearances as witnesses, and have spoken to many from that part of the world and I would bet my life that most of them would not know the meaning of these words even though they have attended classes and most speak better English than Nebojisa. Nebojisa, you need to work on your broken English for it marks you as a man or a woman different from us, dishonest, and hiding behind a Serb pseudonym.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 10:42 am
    Mr Walter: Why you will regret quoting Voltaire? Well, you`ve just proven my point: not a very Voltarian posting, is it? Whatever happened to "defending my rights to disagree" or the like? And stop mis-spelling my name, Mr Tidy Speller.

    Nebojsa Matic
    Oslo

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 12:30 pm
    Walter, as a Serb living in UK for the last twenty years, I do understand how Nebojsa could miss spell true, but be proficient with some other 'difficult' words. For example I also stumble with true, but never misspell the 'trough' or 'though'. I am fine with consequently or notwithstanding, but have a problem with diary/dairy. I know my 'their' as against 'there' and when to use 'me' and 'I'. but really have difficulty spelling uncle and the joint above the foot that sounds like uncle (which I can't remember how to spell at the moment). So, as a Serb, I do not think that Nebojsa is an impostor. As regard to Simon - I think he most definitely is. But I agree with Bogdan, now is the time for us Serbs to unite and try to dispel this terrible, terrible demonization that Serbs are subjected to almost daily and routinely. I live in UK and the reference to 'killing fields of Kosovo', 'concentration camps' ‘ethic cleansing’ etc, etc, are a norm for any journalist. Serbs are examined through the looking glass and any possible connection to be made with Nazi, right wing extremists, communists, etc, is made. We are a Baba Roga, a ‘rogue’ state.

    Mira Mira
    UK

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 9:50 pm
    To Nebojsa Matic: Related? This is the most significant part of the Milosevic trial. In a previous posting I said, Slobo would not accept a not guilty, go home and play with your grandchildren, verdict untill he has a chance to expose in court, the true reasons for the Balkan wars. For you to ask a nation to accept responsibility for others missdeeds is disgusting.

    Pertti Lindroos
    Quesnel
    BC Canada

  • Tuesday September 24, 2002 at 10:17 pm
    Nebojsa I regret misspelling your name. I left Yugoslavia when I was ten from a village in Herzegovina so my Serbo-Croat is not as good as yours. You know you can take the boy out of the village but not the village out of the boy. Your assumption that I don’t believe that you don’t have a right to dissent is ridiculous. Where have I said that? What I object to sir is that you like many others listen to repeated lies so often that you start to believe them as the truth. The reason I suspect that you are not who you claim to be is that you live in Norway and yet you use some words that only someone with a higher knowledge of the English Language would use. The broken English elsewhere in your post does not conform to what I have experienced as a translator.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Wednesday September 25, 2002 at 2:11 am
    Nebojsa, I might have a problem with using big words, because my posts look a little too melodramatic sometimes. But I've been very careful so far not to hurt people's feelings. I am sorry I lost my temper in your case.

    If I may once again, this time no bad feelings involved analyze your posts, and explain my conclusion that you somehow subvert our work so far on this site. The main point that you've made is that yes, ICTY is corrupt and politically biased, but it's not a big deal, it's better to have such court judging our criminals than none at all. This is where I think you're wrong. I think that it's better not to have a trial than to have a mockery of justice. Your reasons for having a war crimes court are that we should confront our past in order to make a reconcilliation possible, and also to have a catharsis as a nation and assume a better position in pinpointing the wrongdoings of the enemy. And I'm telling you that it already happened. For 13 years of living in ghetto, being accused of all world's crimes we were doomed to develop a hard feeling of guilt. We've all served our sentences for the crimes not yet proven, how else would you call past 13 years? What more collective punishment do you need for our collective responsibility? We've paid for much less crimes much more than any nation in war ever before. The future of our country was constantly tied to the cooperation with Hague, so how we could forget for a single day that we're considered criminals? Please believe me when I say that all Serbs are not only aware that there were crimes commited by their side, but they also think they were much bigger, that's the main reason they are afraid to look into them. Nobody, not Milosevic or any other politician claimed otherwise. So why do you keep inventing the hot water? While you keep assuming the better position to point a finger, the world's attention is already turning around to the next interesting subject, they've had enough of us, they've already made their conclusions, there are already entries in Encyclopedia Britannica, it's history already, this trial is our last chance to actually try reassure them otherwise. The point that I am making here together with others is that they've gone too far. The whole war crimes and human rights thing was blown totally out of proportions, it was used to throw a nation on it's knees, to enslave it, to snatch away it's territory, to achieve political goals of the West. All I am claiming is that Milosevic was not a Hitler, and Serbia was not a Nazi country. How can you hope to appease liers claiming exactly that, by saying to them they're partially right? As for Mladic, like I said, I don't know of his involvement in any crime except Srebrenica. My cousins have never, ever got any order from their command to execute any civilians. Their respect for Mladic is based on his abilities like a military strategist and personally a brave man. He was good for morale of the army, people liked him, they felt safe around him. He brough many victories to Serbian army. That was I think quite enough for him to be demonized and feared by the other side. I'm not sure in which way do you think he contributed to the slaughtering of Serb villages?

    Bogdan Oparnica
    Belgrade
    Yugoslavia

  • Wednesday September 25, 2002 at 3:21 am
    Now that we have had the chance to look at the person behind the persona or at least to imagine what it would be like to talk to a person who pulls the strings in this trial, funny feelings come to surface. It is even irrelevant if my speculations were at least partly correct or not. You may rant about subjecting the prosecution team to a criminal investigation, but if you really have the power to make that kind of decision, it will be extremely hard. Let us not underestimate the pressures these people have.

    As the Mayor of New York (Al Pacino) said in the otherwise mediocre film City Hall, over time the line between good and evil becomes blurred. And doesn't it ever! If you had the power to decide whether to subject Tony Blair to the same kind of treatment as Milosevic, it would be really hard to say: do it!

    But if the oath that the judges take (in this country at least) is of any guidance, it is just as wrong to favour your friends as it is to fear your enemies. Nothing must sway your decision. And if some people take their enemies to court, they should accept the possibility that they are taken to court themselves. I think this is the corner stone of every legal system. So we can flash big words like "indict Nato", "sentence Blair" etc., but are you really willing to take the decision? It has been said that the trials of the Serbs shouldn't be halted just because the Westerners are not accused. It is assumed that it is too hard to get the Western leaders indicted. But what is so hard about it, if not the deep-seated respect that you still have for these people? You may talk about conspiracies at ICTY, but it still comes down to human frailty.

    But still, the Western leaders themselves should have shown the same respect to the Yugoslav leadership, even if they were enemies, instead of subjecting to the kind of treatement they did. So they set the standard themselves. And if it comes to deciding whether to charge the puppet judges and prosectors at ICTY (which is now the issue), I think that is just something that has to be done.

    The young man (John Cusack) said to the Mayor of New York in that same film that he should resign. I now cast myself in the role of that young man. I would like to say to my elders: I know your predicament, but you know as well as I do, and everybody else, that this can't go on. You can't avoid some humiliation but at least you can minimize it. Resign. (And this was what the young man said to one judge too.)

    The idea of a truth commission has been floated. Nebojsa said that the Serb leadership should be charged for war crimes regardless. My first thought is: that is just rounding up the "usual suspects". If you make such a big deal of what the Serbs did, you know something fishy is going on.

    Nobody has contested the claim that the Serbs have convicted other Serbs of war crimes. I don't know what the latest figure is. That leads us to two conclusions: First, Milosevic can't be held responsible on the basis of Art. 7(3). It doesn't matter if the convictions were a trap or not. The main thing is that they took place. Second, if the prosecution or the tribunal would recognize the validity of these convictions at all, they should let the politicians be tried in Serbia. This hasn't been discussed (or in fact Prosper suggested it but it wasn't discussed), so we can be sure that the 200 or so convictions in Serbia won't be regarded in Milosevic's favour, and the justice of this trial collapses.

    I know that many people know that this trial (and this organ) is biased, but it is allowed to go on only because no-one has anything better in mind. I think Nebojsa's comments didn't bring us back to square one. He put his finger on the real problem: does anyone have any better suggestions? And this can also be read between the lines in "Simon's" postings, too.

    The only thing I would like to point out in Nebojsa's posting was that he said that this trial may be biased. That choice of words may have been dictated by grammar, but I would like us all to agree on one thing: this trial is biased. The question is what consequences we attribute to the fact. To me it seems that the trial should be stopped. How that will be done is a different matter. I think Srdja Trifkovic said it admirably in his article. The trial is not meant to balance the interests of the prosecution and the defendant. The only balancing act should be between the guilt and the innocence of the accused. So don't let even-handedness strike you at the wrong place. You can't make compromises when determining a person's guilt is at stake.

    On the other hand, if Pertti is right and Milosevic is really going to expose all the lies, he may not go home at all. I don't know if that is the best thing to anyone. It is not such a shame to win a trial, you know (let alone the trial of the century), and if Milosevic really thinks of the best of his people, he should be willing to accept that "offer". Remember, there is no plea bargaining here. His name would be cleansed, and so would the better part of that of his people.

    Actually I don't know what kind of offers and deals have been made, but I think - no, I fear - that Pertti is right. There is still too much of that Kosovo legend.

    It may also be that the Serbs see these things in a more balanced way, but the question is whose way of seeing things Milosevic chooses. Does he really see things the Serb way?

    The idea of the truth commissions were floated. Which truth? Is the suggestion now that Seselj should be subjected to an examination by a truth commission? As I said, that is not enough. Too much of that "round up the usual suspects" here. We don't have to philosophize about what is the truth, but I think that in the legal sense, the truth is not only "nothing but the truth" but also "whole truth". And I think that Milosevic (the way Pertti reads him) is right here at least.

    We want the truth, and I think that Milosevic least of all will give up until any truth commission that may be established looks into the wrongdoings of all the parties. But how many truth commission are there now investigating the Kosovo bombing, for instance?

    I am not saying that a truth commission is such a bad idea in itself. There have been some positive signs in the form of the 1997 Republican Party Committee's report on the Bosnian war and the Dutch NIOD report on Srebrenica. But the problems are just as obvious. We heard from Mr T that the NIOD report didn't satisfy everybody, so there is now a parliamentary inquiry. The RPC report can similarly be dismissed as politicking.

    So any truth commission will be stuff for another truth commission. Even the ICTY judgment have been written in a way that reminds of a truth commission report: heavy on the "facts" and light on legal reasonings. And it is my suggestion that the ICTY judgments should be submitted to an evaluation by a truth commission.

    The process will never end. Maybe new conflicts will arise. And Peter Taylor has been quite right about pointing out one major problem: Blair. It may now be beside the point to discuss whether he was more guilty than Clinton. The fact is that he is now the one that represents the whole Clinton-Blair legacy. To me it seems plausible that Blair has May and Nice in his pocket, and if he does, there will be no truth commission as long as he is in power. And maybe he knows that, and thinks of ever new causes in the world to fight for.

    Maybe his new zeal for the war against Iraq is partly motivated by this nervousness. This shows what was wrong with the Kosovo war. I can understand that force, or even cruelty, may be needed sometimes. However, even Machiavelli distinguished two sorts of cruelty: good and bad. The good cruelty is the one which is directed at one specific aim. The people will complain but in the end they will admit that the end was good. Then there is the bad kind, the kind Blair is now guilty of. The bad cruelty is only meant to cover one's tracks. Cruelty begets ever more cruelty. As soon as the people start asking what the previous cruel spell was good for, a new spell begins.

    This is a very dangerous direction, and it seems to be the direction ICTY is going as well. Blair's fingerprints are all over the place. It has been suggested that Blair promoted the Kosovo war to keep the Muslim population happy. But just a minute. I don't dany that, but should the war be ever used to make "somebody happy"? Let me say it once again: I think the invasion of Iraq is justifiable, but Blair really manages to "contaminate" it. Is he this time on the board to make the Americans happy? And as cynics we must ask: Do the Americans have something that makes Blair happy? Could it be the ICTY and the putting off of any "truth commission"?

    And then there is the question that will not go away. Who should be in the truth commission? We know that the South Africans made up the South African truth commission. Besides, it was a South African idea. They are the fathers of the concept of a truth commission!

    But in Yugoslavia, the idea comes mainly from outside. I don't know if that would work. In order to be a truth commission, its findings have to be official. That means the people have to be paid. That is not a problem in itself. The problem is that money leads to corruption too often. So we could make the truth commission consists of nations that are the least corrupt according to the statistics. These are the Danes, the Finns and the Canadians.

    Ah, but the rumour has it that Israel turned down the UN fact-finding mission because one Finn was in it. You know who I am talking about: Helena Ranta, who headed the Racak investigation. And as Andre pointed out, the then foreign minister, now President Tarja Halonen, was involved in delaying the publication of the Racak report.

    The Danes and the Canadians are Nato members. But on the other hand, as the RPC report shows, miracles can happen even in Nato countries.

    So you see. A truth commission wouldn't work, because the truth is too large. I still support the idea that the police should investigate the activities of the ICTY. If we were any nearer to any truth commission, instead of idle talk, at least Milosevic should be released right now. What is the reason to keep him in detention? Can you remember?

    Jari Nousiainen
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 25, 2002 at 3:38 am
    On another front:

    "US President George Bush may declare Yugoslavia's non-discriminatory status in trade with the United States after he confirms to Congress that Yugoslavia fully cooperates with the Hague-based war crimes tribunal and that, in keeping with the Dayton agreement, it has severed all financial, political, military and other assistance aimed at maintaining separate institutions in the Republika Srpska."

    I don't know what the full cooperation with ICTY means. Handing over Karadzic and Mladic? But it seems Bush is now using his authority to speed up things. I think this is very good. No more rogue state!

    J N
    Finland

  • Wednesday September 25, 2002 at 5:32 am
    Walter: "apologies" accepted, of course. I hope you also read Miras posting? Bogdan: Good, i am pleased that you regained your temper, and - i hope - better moods. We should try not to take all this personally - it will cost us nerves, don`t you think? I do see your point, and i often feel ashamed when i "add" the war crimes burden onto already loaded shoulders; but than again, as a serb, i have more right (than, say, main-stream western opinion) - and a sense of obligation to do so. And one important thing: my posting was of course tailored to this discussion - i would have said different things, in different manner, elsewhere,not because i am hypocritical, but because not everybody is so "heavily" informed as you Bogdan, and many others here.I felt that being a "devil`s advocate" might serve this discussion, which otherwise tends to be quite uniform in criticising ICTY. As for insisting on "serbian" war crimes amidst a decade-long satanisation of serbs: for me it is a question of delicate balance between a fiendish opinion in the west, and what i (still?) think is, too often, a no-acceptance mood in Serbia. A crime is a crime. I am not arguing whether serbs comitted more crimes than others, iam posing a question: how many among us, deep down, feel that Mladic and Karadzic and co were really in their right when killing civilians (You Bogdan say "only" Srebrenica, which of course is belittling the tragedy)because they killed ours, and so on and so forth.And how does discussing ICTY affect our humanity? I sense that judicial zig-zag renders many of us cold and indifferent to simple tregedy. These questions i pose mainly to my self, and my reasons to post them were really a wish to share them. As for ICTY: there is one good thing coming out of it, i feel: the discussion. About the tribunal, about the international community, about war crimes, about leadership, and so on, about collective guilt and responsibility, if you like. Not exactly a small gain. Mladic: What i meant by suggesting that his balance sheet of saved from slaughter / slaughtered might be close to 0, might be so if his extremism provoked others`?

    Nebojsa Matic
    Oslo