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

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 2:44 am
  AW,

  re: 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.

  you know, given the prodigiousness with which you rack up lies on this board, *you* might want to consider a name change or something. Who was it who was publicly baiting Clark as an "Islamist" months ago from the bully pulpit of his gutter website? And do you remember "John Marat" holding forth on this issue a while back, before there even was a PWP on this board? That was before you and your slimy pal decided to get all hot and bothered about people "hiding behind" pseudonyms. Isn't that right, "John"?:

  Arabs did not have a national identification with that particular land. The Arab side was NOT fighting for a Palestinian state. They were fighting to exterminate the Jews - this is exactly what the leaders said. Jordan was the Palestinian state. Arabs living in what became Israel were, in most cases, recent immigrants from other Arab areas and ethnically identical to Arabs in Syria or Jordan or wherever. Many came to the Mandate area because the economy improved with the influx of Jews with modern skills. On the other hand, the Jews had fled slaughter - either in Arab lands (most early Israelis were refugees from Arab lands, not from Europe) or from Europe. The clincher is this: after the war, Israel offered to take the Arabs who had fled back. The Arab countries refused because they did not want Israel to exist. They rejected a UN resolution allowing return at that time. They organized the refugees for terrorist attacks. They also refused to give the refugees citizenship so that they would remain a basis for propaganda against Israel. (Isn't all this reminiscent of the Albanian nationalist boycott of the schools and hospitals in Kosovo in the early 90s, which was then portrayed as an attack by the Serbian state?) If Israel took those people back now they would be nuts. These refugees have been brainwashed to think that killing Jews is the best thing in the world. So apparently have many progressives, so-called. Hitler lives. BTW, half of Israel is either refugees from Arab countries or their kids. That's over 2.5 million people. All their property was stolen, they were driven from their homes in *their* countries, many were killed. But you don't see them because Israel absorbed them. They sure don't vote Labor. Wonder why? Maybe they know something about what it is like to live under Muslim rule. Shame on the Left which has adopted so much from fascism - such as support for Bosnian Muslim fundamentalism, hatred of Jews, demonization of Serbs. It wasn't always that way. At the time of the formation of Israel the left was solidly on the Israeli side. (Russia was the main backer of Israel at the UN...)The time is out of joint. Marat

  John Marat US, May 18, 2003
  
  P WP
  Bas Canada

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 3:38 am
  A number of questions come to mind:

  1. Has Jared Israel been spitting on the various US administrations on his EC site because they supported Islamic Fundamentalism during the Cold War and afterwards in YU and many other places? Is he so much of a Zionist that he cannot stand the US supporting his enemies even against the commies? Or is he a lover of truth and free expression?

  2. Does Jared Israel hate Clark and Verges because they "represented" holocaust deniers or "apologists"? Or are they really in his mind agents of the US administrations planted to sabotage Milosevic's case?

  3. Is Chris Black a Trojan Horse planted in the ICDSM for the same reasons?

  Both Israel and Black, like Clark, have for some time been "defending" the Serbs and Milosevic and criticising US colonialist policies. Question is: For what reason?

  The answer is that only they themselves know.

  Whatever the case, I personally don't give a damn about their spat. None of them maintains credibilty by slagging on the other. All they manage to do is divert attention and energy from fighting the ICTY lynch chamber and its perversion of a just process.

  Then again, maybe that is precisely the agenda that one or BOTH of them may have, for reasons best known to themselves.

  Go for it guys, just do me a favour and find another site to do it on if you wouldn't mind. I have enough trouble downloading due to the 30 sec execution time without the reams of text you guys suck up to get your rocks off at each other.
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 5:15 am
  AW & JI,

  when you (JI) began your 180-degree revision of your own statements and began claiming Chris Black was pressuring Milosevic to have a lawyer in court so as to "dignify" or "legitimize" the ICTY, I remember he posted this to explain things:

  And as far as having the assistance of a lawyer,(as opposed to having a lawyer acting as lead counsel) yes I openly stated my opinion that he would be wise to have one to assist (and I underline the word "assist") him in court and you also supported that idea. Which is why you arranged for the trip of another Candian lawyer to go to The Hague to meet Milosevic last December to discuss the idea, and then left that lawyer stranded there much to their distress.

  Aug. 20/03

  And your (JI) response, perhaps taking your inspiration from Sharon’s technique for dealing with the Palestinian Authority, was to floor the gas on the bulldozer and refer on Aug. 22/03, to:

  ...the pressure from the start with so many people visiting him, such as Mr. Black, pressing him [Milosevic] to change his tune and, in some form, accept counsel. Or adivsers. Or counselors. Or lawyers. Or attorneys. Or *something* that would constitute hidden reccognition of the Tribunal.

  But you bulldozed your own credibility JI, b/c thanks to the miracle of the internet, we have for posterity your righteous bile-letting directed at the Toronto Star for its report on Black’s visit to Milosevic in 2001, and in particular your denunciation of the Star’s “lie” that Black was pressuring Milosevic to play the Tribunal’s game, to wit:

  is a f-ing lie - big surprise. Black did NOT say any of that to them. They make him like some ambulance chaser on a grand scale and contemptuous of Milosevic. He is furious about this article and I think he should sue the bastards.

  What he said was: "President Milosevic has requested to see me to discuss legal matters. I fully support his legal strategy and I think he did a magnificent job at the Hague circus."

  Jared Israel Vice Chairman ICDSM

  Now, just to complete today’s stroll or scroll down credibility lane AW, here’s a reminder of what Jared had to say on the matter of Ms. Dickson:

  The ICDSM needs to send a delegation including our attorney, Tiphaine Dickson, as soon as possible to The Hague. That delegation will reach the international media and be present to handle matters relating to the motion we have filed with the ICTY.

  I note that this was mentioned in the context of a fundraising appeal posted at your website AW, and so I gather that this was back in the days when you and Nico and the Emperor’s Cash Register thought it was good, and not an utterly insane and unearthly idea, to donate $ to Milosevic’s defence through a “3rd party,” when the 3rd party was Jared. (whom I’d personally find more a crowd than a party, but anyway…)

  Now I know I’m repeating myself, but it’s not my fault you’re slow learners.
  
  P WP
  Bas Canada

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 6:43 am
  All I can say is to read the November 11, 2002 transcript starting on page 12834, line 25.

  Read that and draw your own conclusions about whether or not President Milosevic wants anybody "to join him in court to help carry some of the burden of the trial."

  The President has made himself crystal clear. He does not want anybody to join him in court. The President has spoken, and as far as I am concerned any further discussion about having somebody "join him in court" ammounts to an act of insubordination against the President.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 6:54 am
  

  And is it not the State of Israel engaged in a policy of open political assassinations with the tacit approval of the international community, and therefor anyone supporting Israel becomes a murderer by association?

  Who of the brilliant pool of international lawyers will defend say Mr. Sharon in a international court created by the Arab League?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 6:58 am
  

  Oh dear:

  The President has made himself crystal clear. He does not want anybody to join him in court. The President has spoken, and as far as I am concerned any further discussion about having somebody "join him in court" ammounts to an act of insubordination against the President.

  In one word, delirium.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

  Monday September 08, 2003 at 6:59 am
  

  
  
  G C
  SG

  Monday September 08, 2003 at 7:00 am
  

  
  
  G C
  SG

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 8:54 am
  Mr. Jared Israel who "did attend an IAC conference in June 2000" now admits, that by "then (he) knew very little about Ramsey Clark" (September 07, 2003 at 5:43 pm).

  So where did mr. Israel - who professes to respect the Serbs - have his mind during the NATO war on Serbia?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 9:07 am
  

  Forward, without forgetting Where our strength can be seen now to be! When starving or when eating Forward, not forgetting Our solidarity!

  Black or white or brown or yellow Leave your old disputes behind. Once start talking with your fellow Men, you'll soon be of one mind.

  Forward, without forgetting Where our strength can be seen now to be! When starving or when eating Forward, not forgetting Our solidarity!

  Bertolt Brecht
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 10:27 am
  AW,

  Are you actually trying to claim that Black/Dickson are somehow trying to foist her upon Milosevic as a legal advisor contrary to his wishes? Is that your stupid game? Here's what Dickson reported and which was posted by Jared Israel on 12/18/2002:

  The Chamber did however refuse to impose counsel on President Milosevic. The ICDSM is relieved that Slobodan Milosevic's arguments supporting his right to represent himself and not to have counsel imposed on him have prevailed.

  And this is the lawyer Chris Black is conspiring to "force" upon Milosevic, in an act of "insubordination"? Puh-leeze.

  This is really lame AW, about as lame as that "report" of yours concluding Ramsey Clark's a US gov't agent. I say: keep the day job, and don't hold your breath on that Pulitzer.
  
  P WP
  Bas Canada

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 10:51 am
  TRUTH OR INQUISITION - make your choice!

  Letter from SLOBODA/Freedom Association to the UN Secretary General and the Permanent Members of the Security Council:

  To: Secretary General of the Organization of United Nations, H.E. Kofi A. Annan (via UN Office in Belgrade)

  To the Governments of:

  Peoples' Republic of China

  Republic of France

  Russian Federation

  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

  United States of America

  (via their embassies in Belgrade)

  The Association of Citizens "Sloboda/Freedom" - Yugoslav Committee for the Release of Slobodan Milosevic, expressing the opinion of the large number of citizens, stresses the hard violations of human rights, as well as of generally accepted legal, juridical and moral norms by the so-called International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague (acting on the basis of the mandate by the UN Security Council) in the process conducted against the long-term President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia Mr. Slobodan Milosevic.

  In the so-called Pre-defense Hearing held at The Hague on September 2nd, 2003, the Tribunal has shown its unwillingness to satisfy, even in minimum extent, the principle of equality of arms between its own Prosecution and the right to defense, allegedly recognized by the Tribunal.

  If this expressed unwillingness would remain, every impartial observer will come to the conclusion that a modern inquisition exists within the UN system with the only objective to protect interests of NATO in the Balkans and that the most responsible for that are the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

  The Tribunal has shown unwillingness to accept a gentleman proposal by President Milosevic. President Milosevic requested two-years break of the process, during which period he could prepare presentation of his evidence and witnesses in order to confront with truth, in the second phase of the process, the distorted facts and fabricated evidence, the Prosecution is presenting for two years already. He had in mind that in preparing its case, the Prosecution used several years of work of several hundred of people, financed by the enormous UN budget and assisted by the intelligence services of some big countries.

  For its work, with practically unlimited resources, the Prosecution had at least four and a half years (since May 1999), although everybody knows that many materials collected since the founding of the Tribunal in 1993, have been used as well.

  Furthermore, The Hague Tribunal by the length and rhythm of the process and by the denial of the appropriate medical care threatens the life and health of President Milosevic.

  President Milosevic is deprived of visits of his inner family members. By the recent Tribunal's decision, he is also deprived of visits of his closest associates, members of the Committee for his release and members of his Party, by which the right to defense is also denied. Besides, any contact with media is totally forbidden to President Milosevic, while at the same time, the Prosecution talks to media daily.

  Due to the state of health of President Milosevic, due to equality and right to defense, and in the interest of truth, we demand a two-year break of the Hague process, during which President Milosevic would be set free, in order to recuperate his health and in order to have minimum conditions to prepare evidence and witnesses for the second phase of the process. We also demand cease of other violations of his rights.

  The only alternative to this, with which the reputation of the World organization and of the governments most responsible for its decisions, would not be most seriously damaged, is immediate abolition of the Hague Tribunal.

  Belgrade, September 3rd, 2003

  Respectfully,

  On behalf of Sloboda/Freedom Association

  The Yugoslav Committee for the Release of Slobodan Milosevic,

  Bogoljub Bjelica, Chairman

  as relayed by:
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 11:07 am
  David,

  Exactly -- these extraordinarily long posts, including those of P WP , which do not inform directly of the trial are ursurping this one and only, generous opportunity for a trial discussion.

  It is known that Vera has difficulty downloading and such blatherings could prevent her contributions, along with consuming space for those of us who are archiving and/or analysing the actual trial. I say a pox on all the houses that so indulge -- let's get on with the trial!

  As far as donations go, I put my trust in Godfred who is proven to have no agenda other than that of revealilng truth and promoting justice and who is tireless in this pursuit.
  
  M Donne
  Canada

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 11:37 am
  And I say yet again. The Milosevic trial is about justice - not islamic fundamentalism, anti semitism or spats between rival factions.

  For heavens sake can we not unite around this principle? I am getting turned off and I have a high tolerance level. How on earth are we going to get more supporters with such bickering going on?

  Put the other agendas to one side and focus on the trial.
  
  Alf Bentley
  UK

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 11:40 am
  PWP,

  I'm not accusing Ms. Dickson of anything. She may not even know anything about this. This could just all be an invention of Chris Black's own making.

  All I am saying is that President Milosevic has made his views clearly known about whether or not he wants anybody to join him in court, and that for some reason Mr. Black (following in the footsteps of Geoffery Nice) is suggesting that somebody should join the president in court in order to assist him.

  Perhaps you should ask Mr. Black what "stupid game" he is playing. Surely I can't be expected to read his mind. All I am doing is making an observation about what he said here, and comparing it to what President Milosevic has said.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 11:42 am
  Friends

  For those of you who think this is a petty squabble of no importance I ask you to consider why the ICDSM and Sloboda have been attacked and its members slandered by Jared Israel and Andy Wilcoxson. Can anyone one of you state that the majority of the members began attacking Jared Israel first? No. It was the other way round. But why? What is the purpose?

  It is important to put on the public record the facts. I stand by what I have written. Mr. Israel contiues his lie about my supposed donations to his site which never took place in order to cover the fact he took money from my Visa card without permission. Jared, you know the truth. I know the truth, my Visa statements show it and nothing will change it.

  Israel also knows that Milosevic has considered and is considering a legal assistant in court. That is why Jared Israel himself, with the help of the German comrades who paid for the ticket, sent a Canadian lawyer to The Hague to visit with Milosevic in December, about that very subject. However she was unable to as the Tribunal refused the visit. And Jared, who was supposed to send her money for hotel expenses, left her high and dry in the hotel without the expense money he promised, which had been collected by his site for that purpose but which, again, he used to pay personal expenses. Now Mr. Israel pretends that visit also never took place. Well, I remember it vwery well beucase I was in London at the time attending an event to raise money for Milosevic's defence run by the British section of the ICDSM which was very successful. We raised in one night almost 1,000 pounds sterling. It was from my London hotel room that I spoke to the Canadian lawyer who was in the The Hague, stranded by Israel, and that was the same day that I got the phone call from the comrades in the British section advising me, in a panic, that it an article had appeared in the press and was being sent all over Europe that Jared Israel was an agent for Mossad and the US and what should we do about that allegation. And yet he still continues to throw dust in the air by implying that having a legal assistant is a reversal of Milosevic's policy of not having counsel. It is nothing of the sort. Milosevic does not want counsel as such. But he is prepared to have someone assist him. In fact he has had two Serbian lawyers assisting him on a daily basis since his arrest and every day at the trial. Or does Jared Israel wish to deny the tireless efforts of those two brave and committed lawyers. I am sure they would appreciate knowing that they are betraying the president even as they work with him every day.

  This is not a personal quarrel. To think so is a serious mistake. This is about an attempt by three men who have done everything they can in the past few months to discredit, one by one, all the many members of the ICDSM and by so doing to destroy the support network President Milosevic has assisting him.

  The motivation is not personal. It is political. This is a political trial. President Milosevic is an innocent man. The real criminals are Nato and everyone involved in Nato. This tribunal is a weapon of war. This trial is a continuation of the war against Yugoslavia and the Serbian people and against the left in in Europe. It is a war against everything progressive in the world. To discuss details of the daily farce as it unfolds is interesting if one is an armchair lawyer but, frankly, this is not a trial. It is a demonstration of the power of the New World Order to crush those who resist its diktats. The "trial" so-called is, in one way, a mistake for Nato becuase it gives President Milosevic the chance to tell the world the truth about what happened. But Nato is doing everything in its power to prevent him from using that chance: delaying the end of the prosecution case, preventing him from having visits from the media or his close associates, restrictng coverage of the trial, preventing him from properly cross-examining the witnesses, exhausting him with their trial schedule, refusing to allow him time to prepare his defence and on and on.

  Now, it seems, Mr. Israel does not want President Milosevic to have any assistance in court to help him with the daily burden of sorting out documents and the rest of the logistics which it is almost impossible for him to do from his prison cell. He has agreed to have such an assistant. Not, I repeat, not, a lead counsel. No. He is and will remain his own lead counsel. He will do all the questioning and speaking. The assistant would take notes during his cross-examination and help organise material. Just as the two Serbian lawyers now there on a daily basis help him on the outside of the courtroom. But they have little experience with the common law system, which is why someone with that experience is needed to assist him. Again, does Mr. Israel state that those two lawyers do not exist? That President Milosevic does not want them?

  Then for what purpose is Mr. Israel continuing to ask for money for Milosevic's defence on his website. What is that money for if not for lawyers to assist, for investigators and such. And investigators are useless without directions form lawyers to guide them. Why raise money at all?

  But this fits in with the absurd suggestion of sending money to Milosevic's prison account which is for canteen purposes. Does anybody think such an account is a bank account? Does anyone on this site seriously think that if some millionaire decides to send President Milosevic a million dollars for his defence that it will be accepted by the prison authorities for deposit in his canteen account? And does anyone think that if it were deposited that he could just disperse it like some sort of checking account to whoever he pleases?

  That "suggestion" by Nico Varkevisser is just another of their dirty trick operations to cause confusion among supporters and to attempt, again, to push the ICDSM out of the picture. It is a diversion, plain and simple.

  There has been an escalation in the manouevres by Nato and the Tribunal to destroy the support network of President Milosevic. It began with their refusal to permit him confidential visits with counsel,with my blacklisiting by the Tribunal for reporting his statement that he had asked Clinton to get Osama Bin laden and his men (which the US was supporting) out of Kosovo in 1998 which Clinton refused to do, then in recent months, arrest warrants being issued against his wife and son, the phoney murder charges laid against him in Belgrade to try to further discredit him, the mass arrests of members of the left after the assassination of Djindjic, which arrests also included leading members of the SPS and Sloboda in Belgrade including Vladimir Krsljanin, and the simultaneous campaign by Jared Israel to destroy the credibility and motives of the leading menbers of the ICDSM, principally Ramsey Clark, but then escalalting into attacks on Verges and then when that failed, the very founders fo the ICDSM in the first place and those closest to President Milosevic, Dr Velkanov and Vladimir Krsljanin himself.

  One must step back from the trees a little to see the forest. And the disinformation campaign being run by Jared Israel and his two accomplices against the ICDSM and Sloboda and everyone involved, and that is a very large list of people, dovetails nicely with the other manouevres by Nato to isolate President Milosevic and destroy his support committee.

  This is not a petty squabble. I wish it were that simple. A matter of egos. It is much more sinister than that. This is political warfare, a classic disinformation campaign, and it cannot be allowed to succeed. Their is only one orgnization dedicated to the support of President Milosevic and that is the ICDSM and its principal section, Sloboda, in Serbia and Jared Israel and his accomplices are not members. They ceased to be when they began to attack it.

  The ICDSM and Sloboda will continue to fight for the freedom of President Milosevic, for the abolition of this fascist tribunal, for resistance too and the defeat of the Anglo-American New World Order and for the resoration of the sovereingty of the peoples of Yugoslavia.
  
  Christopher Black, Legal Committee, ICDSM
  Toronto
  Canada

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 12:41 pm
  Who are we to believe Christopher Black of the ICDSM Legal Committee, or Slobodan Milosevic?

  Please read the November 11, 2002 transcript from Page 12834 line 25 until Page 12841 line 2.

  In order to assist people to see what is happening here I have taken some key excerpts from the passage above.

  MR. KWON: What do you think about the idea that your associates sit in the court and assist you in preparing the examinations or sorting out the documents, et cetera?

  SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: I don't need them. I don't need my associates sitting up here with me.

  [...]

  MR. NICE: In light of His Honour Judge Kwon's observation, it may be of assistance if I make available to the Chamber and also to the accused and the amici the fairly well-known case of McKenzie which gave rise to the acceptance of the appropriateness of using something called a McKenzie friend. That's the second judgement of Lord Justice Sachs which is perhaps most helpful on the point. If I can just make that available.

  [...]

  SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: As -- despite my referring to all these international pacts and covenants, European, American, Roman, et cetera, the opposing party is now once again referring to court practice and is offering up McKenzie versus McKenzie. I am also going to provide you with something. It is a copy from a court case, and it is Faretta versus California, the United States Court, where quite clearly once again it excludes the possibility of having anybody impose a Defence counsel or lawyer to anybody unless the accused wishes to appoint one himself. So I think it is useless to carry on a discussion of this kind.

  ///END TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS///

  I agree with President Milosevic it is useless to carry on a discussion of this kind. He has made up his mind, and if he changes it (which I doubt he will) then it will be him, and not Chris Black who will be the one to say so.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 12:52 pm
  P.S.: Let me just agree with one thing that Chris Black said.

  Mr. Ognjanovic and Mr. Tomanovic do wonderful work, they are the President's associates, and they deserve a lot of praise for their efforts, and they are precisely the people who money should be raised for because they work 20 hours a day doing research for the President, and giving him outside assistance. However, they are not with him in the courtroom because he does not want ANYBODY in the courtroom with him no matter how great they are.

  They are the real unsung heros in this fight.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Monday September 08, 2003 at 3:42 pm
  My apologies, I wish to make a correction. I stated the Jared Israel did not send the expense money due the Canadian lawyer who went to The Hague. In fact, he did and I wish to apologise for stating otherwise. My understanding of that event was not correct.
  
  Christopher Black
  Toronto
  Canada

• Tuesday September 09, 2003 at 10:54 am
  

  Mr. Black just attempted to 'retract' a lie.

  He wrote:

  "My apologies, I wish to make a correction. I stated the Jared Israel did not send the expense money due the Canadian lawyer who went to The Hague. In fact, he did and I wish to apologise for stating otherwise. My understanding of that event was not correct."

  Not so fast. You did not misunderstand, Black. You deliberately lied. But for reasons I will explain in a moment, you were forced to retract this, your latest lie. So, having long lost all integrity, you lied again, pretending you spoke in error. But your own words show you could NOT have spoken in error.

  Regarding Tiphaine Dickson's visit to The Hague in mid-December, you told the lie that:

  "Jared, who was supposed to send her money for hotel expenses, left her high and dry in the hotel without the expense money he promised, which had been collected by his site for that purpose but which, again, he used to pay personal expenses. Now Mr. Israel pretends that visit also never took place. Well, I remember it very well because I was in London at the time attending an event to raise money or Milosevic's defence …It was from my London hotel room that I spoke to the Canadian lawyer who was in the The Hague, stranded by Israel…"

  First of all, Tiphaine's trip was covered on Emperor's Clothes, see for instance "Preliminary Legal Remarks Of ICDSM Attorney Ms. Tiphaine Dickson, Present Today At The Hague." This was posted December 18th. So much for the lie that I pretend it didn't happen.

  Second, if you, Christopher Black, had said, in your first story, that a *third party* told you that I, Jared Israel, stranded Tiphaine Dickson, you could have been mistaken. But you did not say that. Trying to make your lie convincing, you embellished. You said you remembered her being stranded because you talked to Tiphaine on the phone from your hotel and she told you how I had left her high and dry. And, because you talk too much, you added this little touch: you wrote that that I "again…used [this money, raised for Tiphaine's trip] to pay personal expenses.

  Note that word "again". Because you said 'again', Mr. Black, all your past slurs against fall with this latest one. Because even if you "misunderstood" that Tiphaine was stranded, how could you "misunderstand" what I did with money? Now we know: you make it all up.

  Why did Christopher Black retract this particular lie? The most obvious explanation is that Tiphaine Dickson is reading these posts. My hypothesis: she saw Black's outrageous lie and refused to be party to it. Smart lady, since I have on file the receipt from Western union for the money I sent her, $700 plus western union fees. So now Black was in trouble. He had to "retract"; but that is impossible. So he stands exposed. And this is the supposed leader of the supposed legal committee of the supposed board of the new and improved ICDSM? A man whose legal duties for Milosevic permit him all this time to spin lies to smear the defenders of Milosevic on a Milosevic discussion list.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Tuesday September 09, 2003 at 11:05 am
  This board is provided for serious discussion of issues relating to the Milosevic trial. It is not to be used for fund-raising, for the airing of personal and/or organizational grievances or for personal attacks on other discussants. Abuse of the board in this manner will result in its termination.
  
  JURIST Moderator
  Pittsburgh
  USA

• Tuesday September 09, 2003 at 11:34 am
  Yes, - stand up and let your voices be heard on issues relating to the Milosevic "trial", - there are thousands of arguments!

  Ref. postings of September 03, 2003 at 12:02 pm and at 12:39 pm
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday September 09, 2003 at 12:25 pm
  Thanks Moderator .- Now we will really know who is for the sake of justice by abiding to the rules , or who are the ones that want this board cancelled .
  
  M P
  Rep. of Panama

• Tuesday September 09, 2003 at 12:35 pm
  

  Good performance by Mr. Milosevic today in court with a very mellow judge Nice (NATO). In this world climate nearing the opening of the IV Reich I suggest the victory of Mr. Milosevic will be crucial for the cause of freedom and democracy; the false prophets are de-masked one by one!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday September 09, 2003 at 1:47 pm
  Today's trial synopsis:

  http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg090903.htm
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Tuesday September 09, 2003 at 2:00 pm
  Apologies to the moderator about the one small comment I wish to make re Chris Black's recent posting. (I agree that the Black-Israel argument should be aired elsewhere.) If permitted, this will be my only posting on the matter.

  My comment is this. I don't understand how you take pride in raising in London "almost 1,000 pounds stirling in one evening" for Milosevic. It's a miniscule amount, especially considering the effort that must have been involved. Unless you were already there for other reasons, I imagine that a couple of you could have raised that much and more just by not bothering to fly to London and instead contributing your air fares to the cause.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 1:17 am
  MP:

  I'm afraid it's on the cards that the ones that want this board cancelled are the Jurist Controllers themselves.

  As someone else remarked, long after I first pointed it out, this forum is completely inaccessible from any of Jurist's other webpages, even including this forum's archive, and this has been so for some time. This was not always the case.

  Hence the only way for a 'newcomer' to come across this page is via a link from elsewhere, or a lucky Google on appropriate words, or by word of mouth.

  I posited at the time that this may be timed before the Milosevic defence phase starts. It's looking well timed. I suggest those interested enough copy the archives, as I wouldn't bet the farm on this forum lasting much longer after the beginning of Milosevic's defence.

  Anyone else noticed how the Moderators have also desisted from replying to other queries made of them, and for quite a long time now? As examples, queries as to why, apparently, this forum is inaccessible from any other of the Jurist's pages, as well as the request to do something about extending the 30 sec. php timeout period - on which they didn't even bother to reply to say pas possible.

  The Moderator's idea that disagreements between the big and famous (or infamous, as it seems to be becoming) movers and shakers with regard to the Milosevic 'defence' not being a relevant thing to hammer out here, is amazing. I would have thought they would have been quite flattered, as kinda was I initially on seeing the 'big' names up here.

  It also seems disingenous to me that Jurist now complains about fund-raising information for Milosevic, when Godfred has been posting such here for some time without the slightest hint of complaint from Jurist.

  Remember they are a US website, so who knows what pressures Pitt university is subject to from pro-Empire forces with regard to their current and future funding? It's the American way.

  That said, they have been pretty good with regard to their stated (lack of) censorship policy, as Moderators here have mentioned occasionally. It's not true, however, that they don't occasionally censor non-offensive, non-profane, but otherwise strongly worded posts, as they repeatedly did with one of mine, a long time ago now.

  I suggest that an open Yahoo! Group be opened and publicised. Even if this forum lasts longer than I suspect it will, that can do no harm. I would certainly be willing to link to it from my modest webpage. I apologise for not having linked to this page so far. I will correct this oversight soon.

  Professor Jovanic: Forget the spats between the various supporters, or should I say self-alleged supporters, of Milosevic. In relation to TENC, merely apply your excellent academic and analytical skills to a critical comparison of TENC's treatment of Yugoslav issues with Israel-Pal issues, as I have suggested here before: I believe you'll have no choice but to conclude, as I did, that the Yugo articles on the whole are backed by at least some academic quality, whereas the Israeli-Pal ones, based as they are on "pro-Arabic" sources on very much selective MEMRI lines, and pro-Israel sources that could be categorised generally as 'Zionists'R'Us.com' glaringly lack that quality. So P WP is right in his description of the transition of TENC to the IDF'sNewFatigues.com as odious.

  Jared Israel has repeatedly, and please note, Jurist Moderators, that this is not a personal attack, he has repeatedly warned Serbs against alignments with "fascists", of dubious alliances, and with occult agendas. I remind those Serbs of the position of successive Yugoslav and Serb governments including those under Milosevic, on the Israeli-Pal problem, ie: pro-Palestinian and critical of Israel, and warn them analogously against newly revealed ardent Zionist "supporters" with no longer occult agendas.

  If Jurist decides to use this post as the pretext to terminate this board, then all here (except Jurist) have my apologies; just to say that this seems on the cards anyway, and that would in any case be as fake a pretext as the Racak "massacre" was for the bombing of Yugoslavia.

  Additionally, of course, any Yahoo! (sic) who really does want to see this board terminated can just come in and give Jurist the pretext to do exactly that. A lowering swinging giant axe as in the old horror movies.

  My E-mail is dennisrevell@att.net, in case someone does decide to set up a Yahoo! Groups "mirror", or you can send me hate mail, in case Jurist uses this post as the excuse to terminate the board. I for one am not prepared to think I have to walk all tippy-toes with regard to posts I make here, or elsewhere, be scared of saying the "wrong" thing and so on - in that situation the powers that be can use any "offending" post, even inadvertently made, as the pretext to terminate. I don't do the walking on broken glass trick, neither broken glass "made in America" (in which case I would probably have to go to the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, or Iraq to find some, in fact, a very great deal), nor made elsewhere.

  I am amazed at Chris Black's huge gaff - I already remarked in relation to Jared Israel's ridiculous characterisation of Gogol as a holocaust denier that that must be the sign of someone always on the look out for a soft underbelly to attack. Hell, Chris, you're a lawyer, there's something about (even lawyers) making sure of their facts, isn't there? You see, you gave JI a getout for ever and a day, in regard to your interchanges with him, which he's likely to use repeatedly in preference to discussion of relevant facts that he finds uncomfortable. Given Mr. Israel's lack of response to points I have made to him, I guess he just hasn't yet discerned a soft underbelly on my person to attack yet, but, I certainly would be more careful than to disembowel myself, cook it, and offer it up to him on a plate, Mr. Black.

  Thank you all very much.
  
  Dennis Revell, Ex-Pat
  Etats-Unis

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 1:37 am
  Thankyou Moderator,

  As a longtime reader of this forum I have recently scrolled down to ID the writer before reading the content.

  Vera, I love you and Jari where are you.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 1:59 am
  All the rantings and ravings against the Moderator. Take a deep breath and relax. The Moderator distinquishes himself/herself by using “Red” type and never signs his/her location. YOU HAVE BEEN HAD. Why turn on everyone. The Jurist has allowed this forum to go on for sometime. This is an American forum and even though you bash America quite a bit, they have never discontinued the forum. You should probably apologize.
  
  Kathryn Love
  Orange Col
  CA

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 2:21 am
  -
  
  RED TYPE Like this
  USA

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 2:34 am
  Kathryn:

  Long time no see, or should I say "no read".

  I will apologise to the Moderator if it's pointed out to me where some reply was made to the query about the php timeout, and, much more importantly, just why it was decided to apparently remove all links to this forum from Jurist's other pages. Whether or not the relevant post was made by a fake Moderator does not reduce my curiosity on these points, nor their validity, assuming I didn't miss replies on them - which is entirely possible.

  If that was a fake post, well done, fake Moderator from Pittsburgh, good spoof!

  You say I bash America quite a bit. Well, that's your interpretation of my opinions about what I believe to be the truth about America. No one wishes more than I do that that truth as I see it were different.
  
  Dennis Revell
  Etats-Unis

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 5:00 am
  Mr Wilcoxson

  I remember going to a friend's house in Yugoslavia in 1980. He had his JNA uniform hanging in his wardrobe.

  Yugoslav soldiers remained as reservists for some years after they finish military service, and so they would need to keep their uniforms.

  Taken from Mr Wilcoxson's trial synopsis (9 Sep 03)

  "Another useful tidbit came when he said in his written statement that as a T.O. member and a reservist he kept a JNA uniform at his house. This means that anybody in the country who did their military service could have a JNA uniform whether they were actually carrying out JNA activities or not."
  
  Michael Thomas
  London
  UK

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 9:16 am
  
  The wrong thing to do

  Nato now supports the killing of Albanian terrorists. Some reports claim three were killed and more injured including civilians. But while this was ‘The wrong thing to do’ under Milosevic it is now “The right thing to do” while Nato is in control!

  What is going on: According to Blair “The right thing to do” was to support the killing of Serbs in support of KLA terror?

  According to Blair “The right thing to do” is to support a KLA installed regime in Kosovo under which even the murder of children is tolerated: As has been the case in the preceding thousands of murders: it is unlikely that anyone will be arrested and charged for this latest atrocity.

  In contrast: while accusing Milosevic’s forces of disproportionate force in Kosovo Blair claims it is the “The right thing to do” for coalition forces to batter down doors, beat up innocent Iraqi citizens, kill them arbitrarily with indiscriminate gunfire or with bombs lobbed into their homes: after first having bombed them into submission. This he claims is justified by a war on terror. By this I suppose he means the terror wrought by Saudi Islamists on the WTC.

  “It is the right thing to do” to kill Serbs in order to support Mujahedin terror in Kosovo and “The right thing to do” just to kill them in Iraq: Confused?

  Have you looked lately into the demon-eyes of he who would demonise the Serbs? He who justifies his killings by parroting Chief Spin Doctor Campbell’s phrase “I believe it was the right thing to do”: He who in a so-called democracy ignores the wishes of the majority or converts them by vicious lies. Frightening isn’t it! Hitler, with the help of his Chief Spinster Dr Goebbels, also justified his atrocities by claiming he believed it was “The right thing to do”.

  In Kosovo Milosevic’s forces had no option but to combat a bloody KLA terrorist insurgency including Mujahedin. Instead of supporting the Serbs in this legitimate struggle Blair dropped cluster-bombs on the Serbs in support of terrorists. From the day in June 1999 that Blair’s forces, under General Jackson, led the occupation of Serbia’s province of Kosovo to this day more than four years on Kosovo’s minority populations have been in the grip of terror.

  Even a fool can see that Madame del Ponte has the wrong man in the dock. Like Madame Pompadour before her these Mesdames del Fruitcake live in a fantasy world. “I have no evidence” del Ponte declares whenever challenged on her failure to indict the KLA leadership. Yet all around her the evidence, including the ongoing thousands of murders, piles up along with that from her own prosecution witnesses, such as K6, in the ICTY trial records. For all but the ostriches like del Ponte, with their heads buried in the sand, this is plain to see.

  What will history make of the Trial of Milosevic: of Blair and his contradictions?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 9:39 am
  RE: MODERATOR's posting, Sept. 09, 2003 at 11:05 am

  How are we ever going to have a "serious DISCUSSION", if no one is ever willing to defend the ICTY proceedings as offering mr. Milosevic "a fair trial"?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 12:03 pm
  Michael Thomas,

  Yes this is precisely the point. Anybody could have a JNA uniform. So if a witness says that he saw somebody in a JNA uniform doing something that dosn't mean that he saw the JNA doing it -- he only saw somebody wearing a uniform that practically everybody already had hanging in their closet.

  In spite of the fact that you saw it with your own eyes and that you know, and everybody in Yugoslavia knows that these uniforms could be found in a closet in practically every house in the country; prosecution witnesses (mainly those alleging crimes by the JNA) still try and claim that nobody could keep a JNA uniform at their house, because admitting that practically anybody could have a JNA uniform would mean that they couldn't say that the JNA was actually looting or killing or doing whatever it was that they happen to be alleging.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 1:01 pm
  
  A message for Blair

  “The right thing to do”: Resign

  And a few questions: Did Milosevic’s forces in Kosovo commit any worse atrocities than these actions of your coalition forces in Iraq against Farah Fadhil et alia?

  Incidentally how are you going to account for the tens of billions of GBP’s wasted on these illegal and fruitless wars in Serbia and Iraq, which serve no other useful purpose than to massage your ego, while Britain’s health services, transport infrastructure, internal security, education and pensions go down the pan for lack of funds?

  Just what is the cost?

  Also adding insult to injury of the British people: How much is it costing Britain to add insult to injury of the Serbian people by part funding a five year Show Trial of Milosevic? My local solicitor charges £200 per hour so God knows (is that you?) what it costs to fund the likes of former minor circuit judge May for five years.

  And while we’re on the subject of justice: How is it that May, a “prominent member of the Labour Party” and thus an acquaintance of Blair, who is also a lawyer, presides over this trial when his mate Tony has a vested interest in the outcome. Is this a New Labour ‘new principle’ of justice?

  And how does Blair’s New Labour government reconcile solicitors’ fees of circa £200 per hour with the minimum wage of circa £5 per hour?

  If you can’t/won’t answer these questions perhaps someone else will?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 4:32 pm
  Ah, uniforms again.

  As a matter of class revision, who was it who said to Congressman Joe Moakley:

  "Anyone can get uniforms"

  ?

  OK, so it's a beginner's question ...
  
  Dennis Revell
  Etats-Unis

• Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 5:33 pm
  How much can we expect from losers like Mr. Bush , who needs 20 minutes to make his mind which 4 goes first while writing 44 . Or Mr.Blair whose lies are embarrasing all British institutions . Or Mrs.Del Ponte the greatest loser,who has shown her mediocrity as a prosecutor,and money laundry cases is as far as she can get. And for the "big finale" of this "Opera Buffa" we have "tre pagliacci" in The Hague .
  
  M P
  Rep of Panama