MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 6:58 am
  

  "We also need a road map,"

  Infectious disease and gorgeous stuff!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 7:00 am
  

  MODERATOR: Please reduce the size of this page, or only BIG BLUE will be capable to handle it.

  
  
  G C
  SG

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 7:43 am
  I never doubted - and did not question - mr. Milosevic's qualifications, Andy Wilcoxson.

  On the contrary I would certainly consider the President to be fully "qualified to manage his own bank account" - even if he had never been the director of Beogradska Banka.

  However I also assume, that there are valid reasons for the current arrangements concerning "donation procedures" etc. - as recommended by the ICDSM and the SLOBODA/Freedom Association.

  With reference to my posting above (September 03, 2003 at 12:02 pm), which you seem to be dismissing as merely a "very lengthy document" (Sic!), but which I read as an urgent message from mr. Milosevic to "the public and all relevant international factors", I note, that ICDSM and all national committees (incl. SLOBODA/Freedom Association and, say, the German section of the ICDSM) are supposed to continue to "give the tone" to future action, - as they have done so far.

  With particular regard to "donations" this message, (the authenticity of which I have no reason to question!), carries a reference to "detailed instructions" at:

  http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm

  At the same time it is urging you to visit also i.a.:

  http://www.icdsm.org (the International Committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic), - which web-site refers to the very same "detailed instructions" for donations towards the Presidents defence.

  That settles it as far as I am concerned (the more soince in spite of all your "arguments" given above no mention is made of the new procedure "outlined" by mr. Varkevisser" and yourself (or to previous recommendations from you or the ENC).

  Whatever your beliefs and wonderings, then alternative "instructions" as to procedures to be followed cannot come merely from mr. Varkevisser and/or yourself, but must be issued through recognized, relevant organisations, such as the ICDSM

  or the SLOBODA/Freedom Association

  http://www.sloboda.org.yu

  
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 8:20 am
  

  Emperor's Clothes Daily Reports on Yugoslavia page has coverage of terrorist attack on Macedonia.

  EC Editorial, WHY IS THE OSCE TRYING TO PROTECT ANTI-MACEDONIAN TERRORISTS AND GIVE THEM THE STATUS OF STATESMEN?
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 9:15 am
  In addition to my above comments (September 05, 2003 at 7:43 am) concerning "donation money transfers" for the defence of mr. Milosevic, I refer also to my posting (August 05, 2003 at 11:49 am), in which I was relaying detailed instructions from mr. Krsljanin entirely consistent with the latest "procedure" issued by the SLOBODA/Freedom Association at:

  (http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm)

  In that posting it was clearly stated, that for further questions one might contact Volksbank:

  Anja Folkerts

  Tel.: +49-6157-980-230, Fax: +49-6157-980-262

  Volksbank Darmstadt eG

  Hügelstr. 8 - 20, 64218 Darmstadt/Germany

  SWIFT: DAVO DE 55

  BLZ: 50890000

  Bankverbindung:

  LZB Darmstadt (BLZ) 508 900 00

  USt.-Nr. 007 220 01153

  USt.-ID-Nr. DE 111 609 637

  or

  Peter Betscher, who is in charge of the ICDSM account in Germany:

  e-mail: Peter_betscher@freenet.de

  Why didn't mr. Varkevisser do just that?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 10:44 am
  Godfred Louis-Jensen,

  Your argument is nonsense. You're saying that people should give money to Sloboda, and not to the president himself, because that is the way that Sloboda tells you to do it.

  The Sloboda website and the ICDSM website are both controlled by the self-same people, so to reference them both is needlessly redundant. And because the same people control both websites; one website's statement can't legitimise the other website's position.

  Sloboda professes a desire to support President Milosevic. If that is really the case, then there shouldn't be any objection to giving money directly to President Milosevic himself. If Sloboda needs money for something then let them ask the President for it.

  What possible reason could somebody, who professes to support President Milosevic, have to say not to give money directly to the President?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 12:17 pm
  It is obvious that Godfred Louis-Jensen believes that money should be sent to 3rd party organizations in order to fund President Milosevic's defense.

  I on the other hand, am in full agreement with Nico Varkevisser that people wishing to financially help President Milosevic's defense should deposit money directly into President Milosevic's bank account. Not to 3rd parties, not to any of the oppsiing factions of the ICDSM, and not to some guy in Germany.

  Anybody with an ounce of common sense can see that the best way to financially assist President Milosevic's defense is to give money directly to President Milosevic, and not to other people.

  Because Godfred Louis-Jensen keeps on repeatedly posting instructions for giving money to 3rd party organizations, as being the "correct way" to donate to President Milosevic's defense. I will now re-post the instructions for anybody who wishes to donate directly to the President.

  Kindly make donations directly to President Milosevic as follows:

  Account (IBAN): NL13RABO0192325019
  SWIFT code of the bank:
  RABONL2U

  Of Penitentiair Complex
  Scheveningen
  Netherlands

  Do not forget to mention:
  At the attention of Slobodan Milosevic
  UN Unit 9000058

  Checks [payable to Slobodan Milosevic] should be sent to the President's associates in The Hague:

  Mr. Ognjanovic/Mr. Tomanovic
  Laan van Meerdervoort 39A
  2517AD Den Haag
  Netherlands
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 3:19 pm
  AW
  Is it legal to send a check to Milosevic from thr USA. I thought Serbi is under sanctions, and the US has prohibited lawyers from the US to participate in his defense.
  
  J\' P
  USA,Wis

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 3:30 pm
  Andy Wilcoxson,

  I certainly did not suggest "giving money to 3rd party organizations, as being the "correct way" to donate to President Milosevic's defense."

  However, in response to your posting (on September 03, 2003 at 12:35 pm), which (on the basis of a letter from Nico Varkevisser) "outlines how you can deposit money directly to the bank account of President Milosevic," I drew attention to the procedures hitherto recommended and the "important instructions" issued by SLOBODA/Freedom Association at:

  http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm

  and at: http://www.icdsm.org

  In my posting (September 03, 2003 at 1:00 pm) I was asking you (and/or Nico Varkevisser) to kindly clarify why this new "method" suggested by yourselves would be preferable to the procedures(s) hitherto recommended by the SLOBODA/Freedom Association (and the ICDSM)?

  That SLOBODA/Freedom Association and the ICDSM would be "3rd party organizations" in the context of mr. Milosevic's struggle is news to me, - and quite embarrassing I think to a lot of people, if it were true. Are you seriously suggesting that funds - which may already have been donated in accordance with the instructions given by mr. Krsljanin as coordinator on behalf of both the SLOBODA/Freedom Association and the ICDSM - are not serving their proper purpose, have not been reaching the "desired recipient" sufficiently "directly" - or that for some reason we cannot reckon on further funds to do so in future?

  Or what are you talking about? It is very well, that you are "in full agreement with Nico Varkevisser" on the virtues of some alternative, more "direct" procedure, - but I trust, that I am not the only person in need of something more substantial than such assurances to be confidently recommending your new "outline procedure" to potential donors.
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 3:49 pm
  On Thursday, when Milosevic was too ill to attend the "trial," Nice suggested slyly that his illnesses invariably follow "difficult testimony." The only testimony he could have been referring to was the one the previous day which took place entirely in closed session. So we have no idea who this mystery witness was and why his testimony was supposedly so damaging.

  However, unless this mystery witness had appeared before, it doesn't seem as if the testimony lasted all that long. If the witness were someone like Biljana Plavsic or Richard Holbrooke, Milosevic would surely have insisted on lengthy cross-examination. Does anyone have any ideas about the identity of this witness?
  
  Robert Hessen
  Seattle
  Washington

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 3:59 pm
  Well thanks to the moderator for finally makeing the page shorter. Maybe we will be able to read a report from Vera now.

  JP what are you talking about sanctions finished a long time before now???
  
  A Pasic
  SCG

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 4:35 pm
  AW,

  re your:

  If somebody wants to contribute to President Milosevic's defense, why on Earth would they want do it through a 3rd party such as Sloboda or Peter Betscher, when they can give the money directly to President Milosevic himself?

  Why on earth indeed Andy, which raises the question as to why you, Varkevisser and the Emperor of Sanctimony were exhorting us to do just that for years, and up until very recently, including ardent solicitations to do so by "pay-pal" credit card donations at the E-C and Jared-run icdsm.com websites, or by cheque mailed to Newton, Massachusetts (which is sure a funny place for Slobo to be collecting his mail. So, does he have an account with First Boston or something?)

  And while the 3 amigos are trying to sell us this bilge, do you have any nice bridges in the NYC area for a decent price?
  
  P WP
  Bas Canada

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 5:04 pm
  AW & JI,

  You (AW) wrote on Aug. 26, 2003,

  In fairness to the people who had previously believed that there was no Srebrenica massacre (myself included) -- I believe that we did the best with the information that we had at the time.

  Now it turns out that President Milosevic says that there was a massacre in Srebrenica. This is new information, and it has to be taken into account when discussing Srebrenica in the future.

  and a few posts later the Emperor of Sanctimony at E-C was taunting the “aspiring” lawyer to Milosevic Chris Black (never mind all the times E-C publicly referred to him as an actual and not “aspiring” lawyer to Milosevic, and who’d done “much work” for Milosevic from right after his “kidnapping”, etc) about “try”ing to read the trial transcripts which give us this “new” information on Srebrenica.

  You (AW) also wrote to Gogol here at Jurist on Jan. 11th of this year:

  Jacques Verges is an Algerian fascist [!! - PWP] and President Milosevic never meets with him or consults him in any way.

  Verges is like a leach who has connected himself to President Milosevic. Verges runs the so-called French ICDSM website and Verges recently appeared on German TV falsely professing to be Slobodan Milosevic's lawyer.

  Ok, so help me out with this, because the so-called “French-speaking Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic” website (http://www.liberez-milosevic.fr.st), which you (AW) claim , based on “checking with Jared” - a phrase guaranteed to raise eyebrows in many quarters - is run by Vergès, reminded readers last Sept. 27th of a press conference in Feb. of 2000 held by Goran Matic (a report of which was recently posted as aide-mémoire here by someone else), Information Minister for the FRY gov’t then presided by Milosevic, at which was issued the Milosevic gov’t’s claim that: “The massacre of about 1,200 Muslims, which took place on July 20 1995 at the farm Pilice near Srebrenica, was staged by the French and Muslim intelligence services.” (as quoted in Politika, Feb. 12th, 2000, who go on to state: “Matic emphasized at yesterday's press conference that there is evidence for these claims. This crime was committed by recruiting the locals, and the evidence is based on the statements of the participants in the spy affair ‘Pauk’.")

  And the PCN-NCP, the European francophone group who claims to have founded the so-called “ French-speaking Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic” in May of 2001, reported this allegation by the then-FRY gov’t in their weekly Europe communautaire in Feb. 2000. So the FRY gov’t’s claims, as conveyed by Matic and reported by the founders of the French-speaking Cttee to Defend SM and by Politika, predated by 2 months Jared Israel’s posting of the item “Was the Srebrenica Massacre a Hoax?” at his website in April of 2000 (Jared’s answer: “Yes!” and he goes on to write, on April 8, 2000, in his “introduction” to the piece: “There is no hard evidence that a massacre actually took place,” “Serbian observers have been falsely quoted as admitting the massacre took place,” “perhaps most important, Dutch military officers - that is, the UN officers who were on the scene when the Serbs took Srebrenica in 1995 - report there was no massacre.”)

  Do you see the problems here (b/c I’m trying to use a “big dots for tiny tots” approach)? Do you see, for example, the problem with you (pl) tut-tutting others about not keeping track of this “new” information and taunting others to pay more attention to the trial transcripts, and, with the consummate hypocrisy that’s become E-C’s trademark, assigning to Chris Black the supposedly “negationist” position re: Srebrenica? Instead of taunting “aspiring” lawyers, maybe the aspiring journalist at E-C should consult the wire services a little more carefully. And can you spot any other problems with your accounts of things, like saying now that Vergès is propping up the ICTY line on Srebrenica, while claiming he “runs” the French-speaking committee’s website?

  Help me out too on how you (pl, if it applies) arrived at the designation of Vergès as an “Algerian fascist.” Connect the dots for me, svp. Let’s see, Vergès was born in Thailand in 1925 to a French father and Vietnamese mother. He grew up in Réunion where his family moved after his father (a doctor and diplomat) lost his job for the “crime” of miscegenation. While in Réunion, and along with his father, he joined the French Communist Party (PCF). He joined the French Resistance in 1942, but, given the blockade of France, served instead in the Free French Forces, incl in an artillery unit. He studied law in Paris. First major case was defending a group of PCF militants for trying to block a train taking soldiers to France’s colonial war in Algeria in 1954. In 1950, he accepted appointment to lead a Communist youth organization in Prague. He broke with the PCF in 1957 over the latter’s embrace of the Fourth Republic and its support for French foreign policy, while France was waging a colonial war in Algeria. He defended 100’s of FLN résistants including Djamila Bouhired , whom he was later to marry. (of the 100 of his clients who were sentenced to death in charges relating to the Algerian liberation struggle, none were executed, which he attributed to his strategy of défense de rupture and the public outcry it helped to elicit) He was requested by the head of the FLN’s French section to compile a register of the torture cases he had to deal with for the Livre noir being prepared by the FLN’s higher state committee.

  Here are Vergès’s observations on the French repression of the Constantine revolt (a wk after Hitler’s suicide), which claimed 40000 Algerian lives:

  I was still in the Resistance and I was terribly shocked. I didn't understand how they [the Resistance] could fight Hitler then turn around and do that. Two years later there was a similar repression in Madagascar. The Nuremburg trials were taking place at the time. I simply could not understand how nations could hold these trials so that the sort of thing the Germans did would never happen again. It was clear that the victorious colonial nations were doing exactly what the Germans had done in France.

  Ok, so just where along the line here did he become an “Algerian fascist”? Has JI revised his analysis of France’s colonial war in Algeria to bring it in line with his revised analysis of Zionism’s colonial war in Palestine? Is that the idea? Just wondering.

  That Philly Inquirer piece about Genoud was most interesting, JI. I enjoyed the reference to the “Algerian separatists.” B/c they wanted Algeria to “separate” from France, right? Rather like the “Serbian separatists” who wanted to “separate” Serbia from Turkey, and the “Bosnian Serb separatists” who wanted to “separate” Bosnia from Austria? Well, moving on, I notice they say Genoud bankrolled the defence of those PFLP militants. Now, would this be the same PFLP in solidarity with whom you sent out that statement on the assassination of Ali Abu Mustafa, using the handle Borba100? Just wondering.

  That article doesn’t say how much Vergès got paid to represent Barbie. Do you (JI) have any documentation on that matter? Reason I ask is that Vergès claimed publicly that he was paid 150000 francs to do the case by Barbie’s daughter, and that this sum was exceeded by his (Vergès’s) expenses. Do you have info on this?

  So, it’s just plain wrong for Vergès and the PFLP to take $ from a Swiss fan of the Nazis, but I gather it wasn’t wrong for the Zionist movement for whom you (JI) increasingly devote your website to apologetics, to extensively collude and collaborate and do business with the Nazis, and the Third Reich? This is all covered and documented in Lenni Brenner’s work, including this vignette which escaped - unfortunately - the editorial attentions of E-C:

  [Feivel Polkes, agent of the Haganah (military wing of the Jewish Agency in Palestine and the defacto Labor Zionist militia), told the two Nazis, incl Eichmann, whom he met with in Haifa]:

  ‘The Zionist state must be established by all means and as soon as possible ... When the Jewish state is established according to the current proposals laid down in the Peel paper, and in line with England’s partial promises, then the borders may be pushed further outwards according to one’s wishes.’

  He went on:

  ‘in Jewish nationalist circles people were very pleased with the radical German policy, since the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would be so far increased thereby that in the foreseeable future the Jews could reckon upon numerical superiority over the Arabs in Palestine.’

  During his February [1937]visit to Berlin, Polkes had proposed that the Haganah should act as spies for the Nazis, and now he showed their good faith by passing on two pieces of intelligence information. He told Hagen and Eichmann:

  ‘the Pan-Islamic World Congress convening in Berlin is in direct contact with two pro-Soviet Arab leaders: Emir Shekib Arslan and Emir Adil Arslan ... The illegal Communist broadcasting station whose transmission to Germany is particularly strong, is, according to Polkes’ statement, assembled on a lorry that drives along the German-Luxembourg border when transmission is on the air.’

  (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/irgunazi.htm)

  and of course there’s much more in that vein, such as a commercial deal made by Zionist representatives with the Nazis which greatly aided in depopulating Germany of Jews (in particular the most affluent elements in the community) and in breaking the anti-Nazi boycott, and which was widely denounced by progressive Jews in America and Europe as “collaboration.” And such as the proposal by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to enter the war on the side of Nazi Germany in 1941. And so on. This is the “good” way to treat with the Nazis, right, JI?
  
  P WP
  Bas Canada

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 5:45 pm
  The unfortunate comments of Mr. Nice about the cause of Mr. Milosevic'health problems, reflects a prejudice so deep that his mediocrity can't let him keep his mouth shut. and I hope he will never have any digestive disorder , a diarrea situation can make him go brainless,
  
  M P
  Rep of Panama

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 7:13 pm
  no proces milosevica nije pravedan ikao sto ni on nije sam prihvatio ni taqj sud ni njihovo pravo sudje ja ga ne prihvatam kao srbkinja svajcarka i sve sto imam u svijoj moci upotrebicu za svoje pravo manjine, u hrvatskoj ,bosni i kosovu, napred braco kad svi imaju prava imamo imi. radim kao prevodioc za izbeglice i ako su pojedini pozvani da svedoce protiv slobodana samo zatostoje srbin da bi popunili uslove nekih bolesnih mozgova neka idu pravda je na nasoj strani bez pre i dinara sve moze da se proda semcasti i postenja a to su mnogi vec prodali prodali su i izjave o milosevicu da je uradio to ili to da je kriv za to ili to za jedan permise b dozvolu boravka na zapadu prodali su svoju decu poginulu , nestalu za samo jednu obicnu sumu novca od 2000DM kako srbi tako i ostali i sve ih pozivam pre nego sto postovani nastupi sa svojom odbranom da se sami prijave da su iz sopstvenih potreba izjavili posvedocili radi novca u to vreme a ne u ime istine pre nego sto gospodin slobodan MILOSEVIC pocne svojproces prevodioc mima scheller za sve pismene sadezaje od1992 do2001 sa podrucja srbije , bosne hrvatske, kosova od1981 i svih izbeglih i nikad ne privedenih a registrovanih kao izbeglice u svajcarskoj zbog pocinjena dela nad srbima sve zrtve imaju pravo govora iako nisu vise medju nama kako svi tako i mi srbi s'verom u boga.
  
  Mima Scheller Stamenic
  Geneva
  Switzerland

• Saturday September 06, 2003 at 12:18 am
  "Mr" May seems to reserve a lot of vitriol for Milosevic and Tapuskovic in particular. And it always seems to follow a situation where either of the two happen to annihilate a witnesses' credibility. Note the latest outburst against Tapuskovic. May might resent Milosevic acting as his own counsel because Milosevic is not an experienced trial lawyer. But Tapuskovic is more than an ordinary lawyer. He has some 40 years of experience and his reputation as a man of law far outweighs May's experience as a circuit judge in the Midlands where he dealt with unpaid parking tickets.

  Yet, May has a nerve treating Tapuskovic, or any other member present at the hearings, in the way that he treats them. If ever there was a case of mispropriety, May has earned severe condemnation from the legal world. If ever there was an indication of PREJUDICE, it seems to be directed by May against the TWO SERBS who are demolishing his case: Milosevic and Tapuskovic!

  Note the pussyfooting approach May reserves for the "Prosecution" members. Note the fawning tone and the bending over backwards to accommodate them.

  If that is EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, then May can eat my hat. In fact, when he's done with that I can give him something even harder to chew on.

  What a scumbag! What a disgrace to the legal profession! What an embarrassment to Kwon and Robinson who sit back silently like good old colonial puppets as the master gets his rocks off! Mind you, they did have to draw the line and overrule him on the admission of a Serbian prosecutor's document. Seems to me that after the comments May made about "useless evidence" because the prosecutor was a Serb, they had no choice but to salvage their own credibility to some extent.

  What do you say to the evidence given by some well known Serb scumbags and criminals who spoke for the Prosecution's case, May? They're RELIABLE because they're the Prosecution's scumbags? What they say goes as gospel.

  Give us all a break May! Better still, break your own neck and die in the gutter where you belong.

  Anyone still want to argue that this trial is even remotely fair in front of a "judge" who behaves the way May does?
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday September 06, 2003 at 9:34 am
  Fucking hell, P WP, that's brilliant!

  I'm not needed here, I'll concentrate on my own lonely too private, and probably ultimately fruitless campaign to destroy that real fascist, War-Criminal, traitor, and general out-and-out whizzing spinning top scumbag Tone Bliar, and the MPs who voted his way.

  I did some searches recently on Verges et alia, and pondered posting something far more inferior along the lines of just some of your magnificent post. Thanks for saving me that trouble.

  It is rich how JI flagrantly tosses around accusations of fascist and holocaust denier (the latter of these most recently directed at Gogol, of all people, which prompted my last mini-wave of posts), when he obviously shows extreme fascist tendencies himself in his unwavering support of the murderously fascist, racist, and apartheid state of Israel.

  It seems to me typically American to attack legal representatives of those characters deemed unsavoury, as JI does. On that basis, Milosevic doesn't deserve legal help (yes, I know I can't say "representation"!). As the new Hitler temporarily replacing Saddam Hussein, only for the latter to regain that top-job, Milosevic was for long, of course, the 1990s favourite unsavoury. So no party deemed generally unsavoury, including Milosevic deserves, or should get legal help.

  It seems obvious now that JI was merely using the Milosevic case to establish a "credible" platform from which to eventually spring his long-time Zionism on us all. I don't go for the line pushed at EC that there was any revision of his views at any recent time on the Israeli-Pal problem. I base this on the fact that prior to the scales "falling from JI's" eyes, before Jenin, as EC alleges happened, that in spite of ECs theretofore widespread and comprehensive condemnation of the US Empire, there was hardly a mention of the problems surrounding (caused by) the US's main minion of Empire in the Middle East: Israel. That's not to say there was no mention, but, given EC's then professed position, the longest standing and possibly most dangerous problem in the World would be expected to be a centrepiece of that condemnation. In this regard, it was conspicuous by its absence.

  I have raised this question here with JI previously. No reply, which doesn't surprise me any more.

  It's now pretty much of a no-brainer which way JI would jump given the choice between promoting the welfare of Milosevic/Yugoslavs/Serbs and support for the fascists currently running the state of Israel. I don't know if anyone actually presented that choice to JI, but he made the jump anyway.

  Wilcoxson seems a sadder case. Whereas JI evidently always had a long occult Zionist agenda, I found it most admirable, as revealed here a while ago, that Wilcoxson actually went to the trouble of learning the Serbian language in order to better stalk the landscape without stepping into the bullshit. In fact, even until recently, I was still of the opinion that he had merely regrettably hoisted his sail onto the wrong mast. Unfortunately, and even more regrettably, on perusing recent posts here in more detail, that opinion appears to be wrong, and it appears that not only does he remain happy with his chosen mast(er ;-), but is more than pleased to climb right to the top of it, to continue to issue his shrill clarion calls.

  And now just to completely obfuscate an already obfuscated area, AW gives alternate instructions to donate to the Milosevic/Yugoslav cause. MI6 could hardly have worked out financial sabotage of the Milosevic case better - as in: "So, who among these competing and bickering factions are you going to donate to?". (Of course, it seems that MI6 have already been playing around with the Milosevic case in another area, with the ?Kays? father-daughter combination.)

  Anyway, stunning post. Can you also play the [classical] tremolo with your eyes closed, by any chance? ;-)
  
  Dennis Revell, Ex-Pat
  Etats-Unis

• Saturday September 06, 2003 at 11:40 am
  Dennis

  , here are some recent (Aug. 2003) suggestions from Jared Israel on how you can donate funds directly to Mr. Milosevic for his defence, and not via a "third party" (cuz why on earth would anybody want to opt for the latter?):

  you can donate at Mr. Milosevic's secure server by credit card. Mr. Milosevic accepts Visa, MasterCard, and Discover

  Mr. Milosevic is pleased to announce he can now process PayPal gifts from PayPal members via the PayPal website

  you can donate to Mr. Milosevic by phoning him at 1 617 965-8237. If Mr. Milosevic or one of his customer service reps cannot take your call, please leave a message.

  You can donate to Mr. Milosevic by mail. Please make check payable to ICDSM and mail it to: ICDSM, 831 Beacon St., #295, Newton Centre, MA 02459 (USA) [the heart of Milosevic country - pls be advised however that it may take several business days for your cheque to clear Mr. Milosevic's account]

  link: http://www.mail-archive.com/balkannews@yahoogroups.com/msg00591.html
  
  P WP
  Bas Canada

• Saturday September 06, 2003 at 1:01 pm
  
  Nice one Dennis: I love your prickly roses.

  (-:Your allusions reminds me of the story about a very young schoolgirl who was asked by her mother to choose from a list of boys in her class those she wanted to come to her birthday party. Taking a pin to the list the girl marked out her choices. “ There you are mummy.” she said as she passed back the list to a bewildered mother with the innocent explanation: “All those with little pricks can’t come” :-)

  Enough levity: As you rightly discern Blair is key to all that has gone wrong in Iraq and Kosovo. A principled British Prime Minister would have upheld international law and thereby avoided the consequent disasters for which Blair must now take the major responsibility: For not opposing and thus enabling US administrations in their illegal attacks upon sovereign states.

  The Blair lies continue apace:

  The prime minister was giving evidence to the inquiry into the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly, the source for the BBC report about intelligence in last September's dossier being exaggerated to make the case for war. That report threatened his credibility as prime minister and, if true, "would have merited my resignation", said Mr Blair.

  If we believe the evidence of the scientists, including Dr Kelly, who prepared the basic data then it is obvious that Blair’s first Dossier exaggerated these facts: Let us not forget his second Dossier which was a fraud. And the clincher: just where are these WMD’s that threatened us with annihilation in a mere 45 minutes?

  So clearly Blair has no intention of resigning whatever transpires. To give credence to this thesis consider the pre-war situation in Kosovo. Blair told massive lies in the run up to this war about non-existent death camp and rape camps, about tens of thousand of Kosovars slaughtered by Serbian security forces: statements which were not only not true but obviously not so to those like Blair who were in a position to know the true situation.

  In a just world we would have an inquiry into why Blair told massive lies to the British public in order to drum up support for his illegal attack upon Serbia with the consequent death and destruction of innocent civilians by outlawed cluster bombs. We would have an enquiry into why terrorists and terror have ruled in Kosovo for the past four years. Instead we have a show trial to pin the blame on the victims: that is the real significance of Blair’s fig leaf Trial of Milosevic and its peculiarly unjust goings on under misplaced characters like del Ponte (the bridge) and Nice Mr May.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday September 06, 2003 at 1:29 pm
  Friends

  Re the "direction" by Nico Varkevisser, supported by And Wilcoxson and Israel to send money directly to Milosevic's account or to the two lawyers helping him in The Hague.

  This little manoeuvre is simply another attempt by these three saboteurs of Milosevic"s defence to get people to ignore the ICDSM and Sloboda and to sow confusion among his supporters. All money for his support should be sent to the bank account listed on the ICDSM/Sloboda websites. The money will then be sent to the lawyers in The Hague or used for other purposes, such as funding Tiphaine Dickson as a legal assistant for Milosevic which he has requested. This is urgent. She is a fine lawyer and committed to the cause. Sending money to Milosevic's bank account in the prison is absolutely useless as he is allowed to have in his prison account money for his canteen only, that is to buy cigarettes, magazines, and toiletries. Once money is deposited in that account only he can use it and within the prison. It can not be withdrawn by him and then given to a visitor to be spent on the outside on his behalf.Varkevisser knows this, Wilcoxson knows this. Anyone who has dealt with anyone in a prison knows this.

  The money cannot be sent to just the two lawyers in The Hague either. They certainly need the money. But the point is that money is needed for several projects to help in his defence and they are just one aspect of that. Whatever money is received by the ICDSM/Sloboda will be expended on those projects deemed most urgent and effective in his defence. That will include those two lawyers but it also includes the funding needed to permit Tiphaine Dickson to join him in court to help carry some of the burden of the trial, arranging for expert witnesses, investigators and so on. Since Israel and Varkevisser withdrew from the committee when they commenced their attacks on it and its members they and their marionette Wilcoxson have done everything they can to disrupt the work of the ICDSM/Sloboda and the people who have committed themselves to the cause of Milosevic.

  The actions have been only destructive not constructive. They did not even post the news about the wonderful June 28th demo in front of the prison which all the prisoners heard and applauded even though Varkevisser spoke a that demo. And why? Beucase the ICDSM/Sloboda organized it, not them. They in fact tried to sabotage it.

  Nor have they protested the prohibtion of visits by Sloboda or the SPS to Milosevic. The ICDSM has. Individuals have. But not a peep out of those three. Let us be clear. Jared Israel, Nico Varkevisser, and Andy Wilcoxson, through their personal attacks on almost everyone in the ICDSM (even those that founded it before they came along) have shown that they are interested not in Slobodan Milosevic as a man, as a leader, as a socialist, as a fighter against globalization. No. They are interested in pressing their own political agenda about the middle east and Israel and they used the Serbs and Milosevic to get some credibility. That they have failed miserably is evident.

  Many on this list are fed up with this subject and I can't blame them. It has wasted a lot of paper and a lot of time. But it is necessary to defend the defenders of Milosevic because Nato would like to destroy us individually and as a group. This cannot be permitted to happen. And those that aid and abet the Nato agenda of trying to discredit the ICDSM/Sloboda must be exposed for what they are, collaborators with Nato. Enemies of Slobodan Milosevic.

  
  
  Christopher Black, Legal Committee, ICDSM
  Toronto
  Canada

• Saturday September 06, 2003 at 2:03 pm
  Mr. Black,

  It is for us peripheral followers of this site a very sad affair to see this disunity in the attempt to help Milosevic in his defense.

  Whom is one to believe? My own affiliation with Jarred Israel and the effort he is making on Serbian behalf goes along way. I trust his judgment. I have made donations to the “Emperor Clothes” before and I believe I have supported a good cause.

  It would be prudent of you to tone down the attacks and rhetoric and find some compromise with personal contacts. This way you are just doing a disservice to the noble and just cause.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Saturday September 06, 2003 at 5:04 pm
  It takes courage and self respect to resign and the #10 snake enchanter has shown his cowardice by mamipulating the tragedy of an honest person into his own interest , unless something really muddy pops out,the world will have to keep on listening to his charming tunes . Meantime they are waiting for the drums to be rusty enough , to be filled with the substances that will prove Irak's WMD program , the script is already written just waiting for the date of the "world premiere"
  
  M P
  Rep. of Panama

• Saturday September 06, 2003 at 7:20 pm
  

  Drazco,

  Just remember:"I may not understand what you say, but I'll defend to your death my right to deny it"
  
  G C
  SG

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 10:15 am
  P WP: Good spoof!

  Peter: Funny story, about the little girl and the little ... erm .. you know what. I do, apparently, suffer from the unfortunate psychological defect of too easily engaging in deplorable sexual references, for which defect I have received personal admonishment and advice from no less than [sic] the General Secretary of the "Labour" Party, Mr. David Triesman, to whom, in turn, I have issued a profound and sincere apology [sick] [sic].

  Esteemed Professor Jovanovic: Well, although we haven't all been interviewed or published by EC, I assure you that this poster also once held to their trustworthiness. Nevertheless, recent developments apparently, and I think fairly obviously, revelationary of their real agenda can not be ignored. Enough BS has been and still is spoken - these things should be in the open. Hence, I think your criticism of Mr. Black is over-harsh - he stating what he believes is his right, and what he stated makes sense to me.

  ... and, of course, it is, as you say a sad affair. Regrettably, what appear, on a vast preponderance of the evidence, to be truths in many current political spheres, are very sad affairs indeed.

  MP>: What are you suggesting! Surely not that "Iraqi" WMDs, or plans therefor might be planted! Perish the thought!
  
  Dennis Revell, Ex=Pat
  Etats-Unis

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 2:33 pm
  Dear Mr. Jovanovic

  No one feels more saddened by this whole affair than myself. Let me tell you my story so you can understand why I say so.

  I first met Jared Israel in New York at the anti-Nato Tribunal arranged by Ramsey Clark and the IAC in the summer of 1999. He and I both were invited to speak at that very good event. Up until that time I had only known him through his website which like you I thought was one of the best in presenting the truth about the aggression against Yugoslavia and the Serbs in particular. I was invited as I was one of the lawyers with Prof. Mandel who had laid war crimes charges against Nato during the war, the first group of lawyers to do so. Jared was invited becuase of the work he had done on his site.

  I had come to New York on short notice and had no place to stay. Jared walked up to me we began talking and he was kind enough to offer me a suite he had at one of the finer hotels overlooking Central Park.

  We maintained almost daily contact after that and over time I came to consider him a friend. Some days we were on the phone several times a day.

  When Milosevic was arrested I was invited by the ICDSM to go to Belgrade to meet with Milosevic and make a report on the circumstances of his arrest. I was in Africa at that time. I went and met with the investigating judges and the deputy minister of justice who all told me that he was not guilty of the domestic charges they arrested him for and that he had been arrested to please the Americans so he could be handed over to the Hague. The deputy minister of justice also told me that Milsoevic was a communist and as far as the DOS regime was concerned they wanted to hang all the socialsits and communists from lampposts.

  I believe in October of that year there was another meeting in Belgrade of the ICDSM which Jared attended. Someone, I forget who now, suggested that a legal committee be set up to coordinate the activities of the lawyers involved. I got the job through default really. I was sort of "volunteered".

  Jared then made me an editor of TENC. I was not aware of this until he phoned me one day and told me. I had no objection as I admired the sight at that time. Everything was going along fairly well until Jared began raising suspicions about certain people being agents, that the ICDSM had been penetrated. This would not have suprised any of us but Jared began making allegations to me that Clark was an agent, the German comrades were agents or worse to him, anti-semitic Nazis, then he roped in Michel Collon, Mick Collins, Prof. Kuznezov and finally Jacques Verges.

  Jared's concerns re Clark were raised with Milosevic but Milosevic to me stated emphatically that he was not concerned with who or who was not an agent. As long as people supported him and engaged in actions to support him and the Serbs and justice that was good enoguh for him. He told me to tell Jared to back off Clark and to not engage in any open attacks on other members of the ICDSM because that would only be to the advantage of Nato who would love to see us in dissaray and squabbling and worse paralyzed by "agentitis".

  I conveyed those instructions to Jared who, agreed that he would maintain discipline, not attack Clark and would keep his thoughts to himself.

  However, over time, Jared began phoning me with more concerns about Clark, and others. But still he kept discipline and the unity of the committee. And it was during this time that Jared took money from my credit card. You say you trust this man. Well so did I. I almost thought of him as a brother I felt we had gotten that close. But he was always crying poor. He stated several days ago that I had made 15 donations to his site. The truth is I never made a single donation to the site. I was still at that time an editor of it. No, I only made two donations and they were to Jared personally to pay bills. Once I sent him several hundred dollars by Western Union to pay some bill for him and the second time he phoned me and asked if I could help him out with a few thousand to keep his site up and running and pay some bills. I didnt have much myself at that time but I let him use my credit card to take out this money. I had no problem with that as I saw it as contributing to the work of the site which was getting the word out about Milosevic.

  I then went to Africa to do some work at that other kangaroo court the ICTR in Tanzania. When I returned and saw my Visa statement I saw that he had taken out another large sum without my permission. I couldn't beleive it. When we talked about it he said he would have asked but couldnt get hold of me in Africa, thought I would have said yes anyway so went ahead and withdrew the money. I was angry but I let it go. However, I immediately cancelled that Visa card and had it replaced the same day I talked to him as I no longer trusted him.

  I have never otherwise contributed to his website.

  Then in October, about the same time he took a very anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab stance on his site, he phoned me one afternoon and stated that he and Nico were going to make a public attack on Verges and have him removed from the committee becuase he was a "nazi" and stated that he was phoning me to make sure I would keep my mouth shut and not oppose this action. But I told him that I did not agree with their view of Verges and secondly, that it was not fair to attack him without putting these views to him personally so he could answer them and thirdly any open attack by one member of the committee on another would only make us look stupid and would play into the hands of Nato.

  He then said something about Verges being an anti-Zionist and I replied so what, so am I, that I do not support all the policies of Israel. I asked him if he thought it right that Israel supported the apartheid regime in South Africa or that it had supported and trained death squads in central and south America. He pretended not to know about these things. He got angry and accused me of perhaps being anti-semitic too or an agent and hung up. I tried to email him to discuss it further but to this day he has never replied. Nor has Nico Varkevisser. A couple of days after that I found that I had been removed as an editor of TENC without my being informed. Though I am very glad now not to be associated with that site.

  It was then that he and Nico and then their marionette Wilcoxson began their open campaign against Clark and then Verges. This proceeded for several months. The rest of us on the ICDSM refrained from engaging in open warfare with them in order to minimize the public perception that the ICDSM was splitting. We deliberately said nothing even though members of the public who were following these attacks were writing to us demanding we come out and condemn these attacks becuase the attacks were confusing people who admired Clark for instance. They were wondering why we tolerated them. Various people tried on the Q.T. to get Jared to stop.But he would not reply to anyone. So, you have to understand that we tried as long as we could to ignore this and hope they stopped.

  But the staw that broke the camel's back was Jared's attack through Wilcoxson in his "open: letters, on Dr Velkanov in Bulgaria who was the originator of the idea of the ICDSM and Vladimir Krsljanin in Belgrade who is the closest of all of us to Milosevic impugning their honesty and integrity and accusing them of betraying Milosevoc, a man they both had dedicated the last three years of their lives too at some considerable personal risk. It was ubleivable. Absolutely unbeleivable that anyone would stoop so low as to attack the very heart of the ICDSM and someone like Vladimir who had recently been arrested by the Quisling regime in Belgrade and yet still bravely works in support of Milosevic despite the continued threat of arrest.

  And it was not the ICDSM who went public on this. It was Wilcoxson who published his "open" letters making these accusations, combined with the public attacks on Verges and Clark in TENC that forced the ICDSM finally to state that these actions were not consistent with membership on the committee and that therefore they were no longer considered as members of the ICDSM. Mr. Jovanovic, you suggest personal contacts. Well, I wrote both Jared and Nico several emails asking them to talk and asking why they refused to speak to me and asking why they were doing what they were doing. I never got an answer. Not once. Nor have they replied to anyone else on the ICDSM.

  To this day no one on the ICDSM has a clue as to why they launched their open attacks on all its members. We speculate it has to do with Clark, Verges, myself and others opposing the attack on Iraq which they never opposed and, indeed, in some of their postings implied it would be a good thing if an attack took place to protect Israel. Jared sometimes took the positon their was not going to be an invasion of Iraq, thereby doing his part to undermine the anti-war movement. It seems they have another agenda and being part of the Milosevic struggle gave them some credibility for that agenda but it appears they have no real interest in defending Milosevic despite their rhetoric.

  So, Mr Jovanovic, I can understand your dismay. It is fetl equally here. But the ICDSM tried everything to avoid an open split. They did everyhting they could to create it. They have done everything they can since to discredit the ICDSM and sow confusion.

  
  
  Christopher Black, Legal Committee, ICDSM
  Toronto
  Canada

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 3:37 pm
  Thank you Mr. Black, the issue seems to be now much clearer.
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 4:36 pm
  Mr. Black,

  I denounced the ICTY's decision to ban the SPS from meeting with President Milosevic right here on this very website on Wednesday August 20, 2003 at 6:44 am. In fact, I denounced it before you did.

  Secondly, Slobodan Milosevic does not want "Tiphaine Dickson to join him in court to help carry some of the burden of the trial."

  Slobodan Milosevic does not want her or anybody else to join him in court. Chris Black, you are lying when you say that the President requested that.

  Chris Black you are not the first person to suggest that somebody should join the president in court to assist him. Richard May, Carla del Ponte and Geoffery Nice have already all raised that suggestion and the President has repeatedly rejected it.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 5:43 pm
  

  Dear Dr. Prof. Jovanovic, thank you for your words.

  Emperor's Clothes is under attack because we refuse to submit our defense of the Serbian people to the control of the dirtiest political forces; therefore we must be destroyed. The attacks attempt to intimidate those who respect us. By speaking out, you are showing the moral courage for which I respect the Serbs.

  After each wave of attempted character assassinations against me and my associates, Christopher Black appears. His lies are supposed to be credible because he was once my friend: for example his lie that among the *many* credit card donations he made to emperor's clothes a few years ago, helping the Website to survive, some were processed without his permission. Now in addition, he suggests that I maintain suites at fancy hotels. Perhaps that's why I don't have enough money to pay for medical insurance or rent.

  How can one "refute" such attacks except to state the obvious: Mr. Black claims this happened three years ago. He raises it *in the midst* of a general attempt to slander me. He has written nothing in the past year or more exposing lies about the Serbs, but suddenly he writes 5000 words on this list mainly attacking me and also my friends. Doesn't this scenario suggest that he has been promised some reward in return for doing a hatchet job?

  Let us test Mr. Black's credibility. If one can show that Black is a liar *in one instance*, then why should the jury trust his testimony *in any instance*?

  On Wed. August 20 on this discussion list, Barrister Black wrote:

  "You [Jared Israel] state that Nico Steijnen worked alone on the legal papers filed in the European Court. Not true. Although he did the majority of the work and should be commended for it others were involved including myself, and the well-known Canadian human rights lawyer, David Jacobs, in Toronto. If my memory serves me, others were also involved. Steijnen sent us drafts of his papers for critique and revision. David Jacobs spent some considerable time on it. I spent over a hundred hours on that project. I think Ramsey Clark also had some input but I cannot swear to that now at this late date." [Black's comments end here.]

  Notice Blacks air of absolute assurance. Yet every sentence is a lie.

  Nico Steijnen has publicly asserted that *nobody* from the Legal Committee helped in the European case. That assertion was made in a comment Nico Steijnen emailed to Klaus Hartmann and others. I have posted only the relevant parts of Steijnen's email. The full text can be read in the archives for August 20-22. The date information is Thursday August 21, 2003 at 11:26 am.

  ----- Original Message ----- From: Sagittarius To: Klaus Hartmann ; Aldo Bernardini Cc: Ruza ; office@globalreflexion.org Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:46 PM Subject: Re: ON THE FUTURE WORK OF ICDSM

  COMMENTS BY NICO STEIJNEN

  I only will comment on the question of legal defense, since all the other questions are irrelevant to me.

  1. I am waiting now already a couple of years for some ICDSM-support for my legal work on behalf of President Milosevic. What may I expect from the ICDSM in the next future on this issue ?

  …

  3. For all legal work a good communication with Mr. Tomanovic and Ognjanovic is needed. This communication doesn't work at all, till now.

  4. There is, with regard to cooperation in the field of legal action, no communication with Ramsey Clarke and Verges. They only make statements, but do not react on appeals for co-operation.

  5. They claim both, periodically, in public statements to do legal work for Mr. Milosevic, but in fact they do nothing at all, else than, occasionally, usurp the work that I have done on his behalf, before the European Court of Human Rights.

  6. We don't need new national branches, doubtless politically tied up to some agendas. The only thing we need now is a tough legal working group of skilled people, acting politically independent, dedicated to the legal defense of Mr. Milosevic.

  …

  I am sure that this is all completely in line with the expectations of Mr. Milosevic himself.

  best regards,

  Nico Steijnen

  [Steijnen's letter ends here.]

  There are other documented examples of Mr. Black's lies - such as his assertion in a public letter to Andy Wilcoxson that "Mr. Clark was not removed [by Milosevic], he was confirmed, and no one ignored or overode the President's wishes." Mr. Black has stuck his neck out a long way with his lies. Perhaps he is not fond of his head.

  Just one more point. I did attend an IAC confernce in June 2000. It was shockingly bad, but that's another issue. I was there because I had been asked by a wealthy opponent of the US attack on Yugoslavia to help in the production of a video in which various of the speakers attending the conference could be interviewed about Yugoslavia. He was especially interested in Ramsey Clark, about whom I then knew very little. This video was produced.

  The producer wanted the video filmed in a very nice-looking room, so we rented a fancy hotel room. We only needed it for a few hours, so somebody could stay there afterwards - why waste the room? Chris whom I had just met told me he had no place to stay. He was with his girlfriend. I figured, somebody's got to stay in this fancy-shmancy room, what the heck, it might as well be this charming couple. Chris watched the interviews - including me, a Roma organizer and a former official from Sarajevo - being filmed and then stayed there with his girlfriend.

  Chris now lies, making me regret my gesture, just as he lies, cheapening his kind donations to Emperor's Clothes. What a pitiful spectacle he has become.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 5:50 pm
  To Mr. C.Black D. Jovanovic and other Holocaust deniers

  i am one of those who up to a certain point was considering The E.C. as an informative and independent and the MAN behind it (JI) as a decent man dedicating his time and energy for a just cause - ..........

  i got confused for a while when all the "agents" were exposed .......... but i have some experience in dealing with that type of power that could crush you and any single one in the opposing camp but that only would give more credibility, more power to their idea, more wind under their wings......... - that's when the agents come in action and the organization discredits and destroys itself......... - AGENTS (folks with agenda) uncover "agents" and in most cases it does the job.........

  .......- When agent J.I. revealed agent R Clark i was leaning towards R.C. being the one with THE AGENDA.......... - But when agent J.I. started uncovering "holocaust deniers' and "anti-Semites" among the bunch of this board it's clear who the AGENT is ......... and since the weapon of Personal Destruction (those magic words of "holocaust denier" and "anti-Semite") is exclusively in the possession of the Gods chosen people...........
  
  vytas abrutis
  phila,PA
  PA usa

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 6:39 pm
  Fellows,

  I hate to take sides. But I speak of deeds which I have witnessed and actions I have seen.

  Jared Israel interviewed a Jewish person right after the war in Kosovo ended. Jared runs a website which brings out more or less dependable information about Serbia, Jared interview Milosevic.

  I know of no visible ( to me ) actions taken by the opposing side.There is no website where their vies are communicated. If they are respectable people, ( and by the New York Times standards I am not) did they write letters to the editor that I can read.

  Why does a retired professor, Wharton School of Business U .of Penn, Edward Herman ,have more excellent articles and helps in countering the propaganda about Serb’s atrocities, and I have not noticed a single name from this opponents side.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 7:54 pm
  Dear Jared Israel and Christopher Black, It's fruitless ! Whatever you say(or do) to discredit each other, or whatever your standing on other world issues (like Iraq, Israeli / Palestinian relationships or Holocaust) are, it will not cause us, the Serbs, to forget great efforts and contributions you both (and others mentioned in this 'discussion')have done to battle great injustice done to us in last ten years. Thank you
  
  D. Jovanovic
  Toronto
  Canada

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 8:13 pm
  Are there two D. Jovanovic's here? One from the USA and another one from Toronto, Canada? Could one of you please clarify?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 8:27 pm
  I think the conflict between the Israel, Varkevisser, Wilcoxson party and the Clark, Black, Verges party is largely a result of ideological differences and differences in perspective arising from their respective professions. Clark, Black, and Verges are lawyers by profession. In my opinion, they are interested primarily in the legal (and possibly political) implications that arise when leaders of sovereign nations are demonized and branded with the “human rights abuses” stamp, which in turn is used to justify diplomatic and military interventions in the internal affairs of a country. They are primarily concerned with Slobodan Milosevic, rather than with some monolithic notion of “the Serb people”, “Serbia” as collective whole, etc. In all honesty, I am not even sure that they have very strong opinions on the factual truth of the crimes for which Milosevic is accused. I say opinions because much of it is still merely opinion. Forensics have not sufficiently cleared up the facts, witness testimonies concerning such emotionally-charged events and conflicts are notoriously unreliable, and the media and historians have done nothing to help by foisting exaggerated numbers and outright lies. It seems clear that genocide, or at least massive crimes against humanity, took place in Rwanda, yet Mr. Black has in some instances taken the defendant’s side. I’m not discussing the morality of this, but it points to the fact that those who are lawyers by profession have the tendency to look at individuals, rather than collective groups, as innocent or guilty of crime. And Carla bomb Ponte and Nice do not count as decent, conscientious barristers. And, in the same vein Clark, Black, and Verges have had views on the U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that are not in accord with Mr. Israel’s. I don’t think its appropriate to discuss Middle Eastern issues here, but it is abundantly clear that Saddam Hussein was as demonized (if not more) as Milosevic, and that the recent bombings of Iraq during the Clinton era and under the Bush administration as well, were direct attacks on sovereignty and completely unprovoked and unjustified, particularly in the light of the “missing” WMDs used to justify the aggression. I know nothing about Mr. Velkanov, Mr. Krsljanin, or Mr. Varkevisser, but from their work, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Israel and Mr. Wilcoxson have, for the past few months and years, had the defense of “Serbia” as whole and of Milosevic as individual, as their primary task. There is something very noble about this, but it implies a perspective very different from that of Clark, Black, and Verges. Mr. Israel and Mr. Wilcoxson are concerned with vindicating not only Milosevic, but “Serbia” as well. They have dealt, to the finest detail, with alleged and real crimes perpetrated by the Serb and other parties to the conflict, and have done so admirably. But in the process, they have placed a nation on a pedestal and have misinterpreted its history. After the 9/11 attacks, much of current events and history has been placed under the lens of “terrorism”, “jihad”, etc., which is a very bad approach for dealing with both the Balkans and the Middle East. The bloody conflicts of the Balkans have been interpreted as a conflict between the Serbs and Nazis and between Serbs and Islamic fundamentalists. In the same vein, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been converted, by virtue of a Balkan curiosity of WWII, into an eternal conflict between Jews and Arabs, with the Arabs fulfilling the dual role of Islamic fundamentalists and Nazis. That Balkan curiosity is the fact that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Arafat’s close relative, visited Bosnia during WWII to give his blessing to the Handzar SS division. And from there, the connection is made to the modern Palestinian national struggle as a Nazi (ideological) and Islamo-fundamentalist (religious) attack against Jewish and Western civilization, and all who may be inclined to take a pro-Palestinian or even a balanced view of the issue are anti-Semitic and pro-terrorist. This emotional approach has certainly done a lot to alienate those who have viewed the Milosevic trial as a legal and political injustice against an individual and a leader, rather than as the continuation cultural and religious conflict in which we must take sides. On the whole, I find it disgusting when people are accused of being pro-Nazis, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and liars. The last is particularly insulting and the words “lying,” “liar,” “telling lies,” have been spewed very often by Jared Israel and his clique. However, I would like to thank Mr. Israel for his support for justice and tireless search for historical truth, which is to the end of exonerating the Serb people from a black verdict of “collective guilt” symbolized by a conviction of Milosevic (the only major Balkan leader indicted) of crimes he never perpetrated. It certainly seems that Milosevic has taken the more emotional, historical side of the issue, as pushing the legal one (of precisely how illegal his kidnapping and this parade in The Hague, and the NATO “intervention” (aggression) really were) has not gotten him very far with the biased and irresponsible May. Hopefully both sides will eventually be able to resolve their differences (before the defense commences) and discover how, if they cooperate, their different approaches to this farce in the ICTY can in fact be a strength rather than a weakness.
  
  P M
  USA

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 9:28 pm
  The childish arguments aired on this forum as to who is the purest defender of President Milosevic only serve his enemies.

  The public bickering does more to discredit Milosevic than any of the War Party lies. Please stop it !!!!

  
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 9:39 pm
  

  I wonder who would have defended Socrates, Jared Israel or Crhistopher Black?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 10:30 pm
  

  To sasa:

  The reason for the thousands of words of smears of me and others is to create the impression of a personal squabble, which you seem to have bought. In fact, this has been deliberately staged to obscure the issue.

  Here is a statement from Colin Meade, an activist and writer from UK, who initially rejected our articles on Ramsey Clark. His statement speaks for itself.

  To: Emperors Clothes

  From: Colin Meade

  London, UK

  E-mail:

  c.meade@btopenworld.com

  27 August, 2003

  Dear EC,

  I am writing to you to express my appreciation of the immense contribution that the Emperors Clothes team has made over the years in bringing to light the truth about the destruction of the former Yugoslavia by imperialist forces in the West and their separatist protégés.

  For a long time, I by and large believed the official story that Milosevic's policies were responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia. The decisive break for me came with the Kosovo war. At the time I was working as a translator for the French Embassy here. In this capacity I translated some (public) communiqués about the Rambouillet conference. I was puzzled by what I was reading. It seemed as if the Yugoslav side was eager to reach a compromise, while the Albanian separatists were holding out - yet it was Yugoslavia that was bombed. A bit of rooting around on the Internet yielded the explanation - the real text of the Rambouillet "Agreement". Well, it took me ten minutes on my own with an ordinary PC to get the real picture - but none of the mass media seemed to want to know about it at all...

  That was when the whole tissue of lies started unraveling then for me. The existence of your website helped me enormously in the transition between accepting the official line and realizing the awful truth.

  Without Emperors Clothes, it would have been far harder for many of us to find our way through the "fog of lies" produced by the NATO powers to further their plans of conquest and pillage in the Balkans and beyond. Recently, the website and its editors have stood in the forefront of the campaign to defend former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic from the frame-up now taking place in the Hague.

  The reason I feel the need to say this publicly now is that attacks have been appearing impugning the motives of Emperors Clothes editors Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser for their involvement in the campaign to defend Slobodan Milosevic.

  The reason why some people are writing this slanderous drivel is obvious. It is to divert attention from a crucial political issue raised by Jared and Nico: that of the activities of the International Action Centre's Ramsey Clark and French lawyer Jacques Vergès and the damage they are doing to the campaign to defend Slobodan Milosevic.

  As Emperors Clothes has documented, Clark and Vergès have a track record of defending figures from the anti-semitic far right.

  At the Hague, the prosecutors are trying to claim that Mr Milosevic pursued racist and fascist policies. Clearly, claims by Clark or Vergès to be leading the defence campaign can only give credence to this absurd amalgam, which they personally embody, and is thus harmful for the defence.

  Supporters of Clark and Vergès argue that the campaign needs these high-profile people with access to the mass media, whatever they may have got up to in the past. In fact, however, what needs to be got into the media is the truth about the false charges against Milosevic and the substance of his self-defence, not further confusion of the essential issues.

  My initial reaction on seeing the first article on Clark in Emperors Clothes was one of shock and repudiation: why was this internal issue in the campaign being raised so publicly? Milosevic's defenders are small in number, everyone must pull together, I felt. However, now that I have seriously studied the material on the website and thought about the political substance of the matter, I see why and how profoundly I was wrong. Clark and Vergès are not, in fact, pulling in the same direction as me. While I am trying to point out that Milosevic is clearly innocent of the preposterous charges brought against him in the Hague, Clark and Vergès foster the idea that every murderous villain is entitled to a defence, thus implying that Milosevic is just such a villain.

  Finally, and most fundamentally, I absolutely refuse to be tainted, in the name of "anti-imperialism", with the brush of fascists and neo-fascists such as Klaus Barbie and Lyndon LaRouche, through political association with those who volunteered to defend them, Jacques Vergès and Ramsey Clark. People who think this is sectarian need to think again, and hard, about what they really mean by that and where their argument might eventually lead them.

  Colin Meade

  London, UK

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 11:05 pm
  P.M.,

  I agree that the conflict between the Jews and the Arabs has no place here. Israel has not been mentioned once over the entire course of the so-called "trial" of Slobodan Milosevic.

  However, in fairness to Jared Israel, you should know that he is not the one who has been bringing up that topic here. Others have brought up the topic Mr. Israel has reponded, but he isn't the instegator.

  Recently an attempt was made by that so-called "P WP" to divert the discussion and take it off into some useless tangent about Zionism.

  Moreover, the only time that I have accused anybody of being a liar outright was today when I accused Chris Black of being a liar for saying that President Milosevic wanted "Tiphaine Dickson to join him in court to help carry some of the burden of the trial."

  President Milosevic has stated hundreds of times that he does not want anybody to join him in court. Even the most casual observer of this so-called "trial" would know that.

  Slobodan Milosevic made himself very clear on November 11, 2002. He rejected out-right that anybody should join him in court. No Lawyers and no so-called "MacKenzie Friends" as suggested by Mr. Nice, and now apparently by Mr. Black.

  I find it amazing that the ICDSM not only betrays President Milosevic regarding the organizational of the committee, but that the chairman of the so-called "legal committee" is now suggesting that the ICDSM should work to implement the same idea that was originally put forward by Geoffery Nice.

  Christopher Black keeps on forcing me to attack him because he keeps on opening his mouth and saying stupid things.

  Mr. Black defended Jacques Verges eventhough Mr. Verges clearly made remarks that directly contradicted the defense that President Milosevic is putting forward.

  Mr. Black's ignorance is absolutely astonishing, even if he only read what the information media is saying he would know that President Milosevic denies having any command over any personnel outside of Serbia.

  Or maybe Chris Black does know, but he cares more about defending Jacques Verges than he does about defending President Milosevic. So which is it Chris? Are you a schill for Verges, or are you just uninformed about matters pertaining to the Milosevic "trial"?

  This latest idea of Black's about having somebody join the President in court is truly scandalous -- That was the PROSECUTION'S idea, and here is Chris Black putting the same idea forward again.

  Again Chris, are you even aware of the President's position on this, are you actively working against his will, or are you just plain ignorant?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday September 07, 2003 at 11:58 pm
  Andy, I believe there are more than two of us D. Jovanovic because this last name is very common in Serbs and also initial D. Mine stands for Dragisha and I'm the chemist working for a pharmaceutical company. I'm following this forum from the begignning and it is now my main source of credible information on this trial (thanks to your contributions,too). In my previous message I expressed my thanks to Jared and Chris not because they fight for Serb's (or Miloshevic's) cause but because they had a courage to stand up for the Truth. That's what we (Serbs) and whole the World need.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  Toronto
  Canada