Informazione
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Mar 17 Ago 2004 15:05:16 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia@ yahoogroups. com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Scott Taylor and Sarah Flounders
Scott Taylor and Sarah Flounders
1. Behind Bars with Slobodan Milosevic (By Scott Taylor)
Scott Taylor, saggista e giornalista canadese con una lunga esperienza
di cose balcaniche, e' tra le persone che hanno gia' accettato di
presentarsi all'Aia per testimoniare in favore di Slobodan Milosevic
alla ripresa del "processo". In questo articolo egli descrive sei ore
passate in una stanza del carcere dell'Aia insieme a Milosevic e ad una
macchinetta di caffe'...
2. Hague court tries to silence Milosevic (By Sara Flounders)
Sara Flounders - nota attivista dello statunitense International Action
Center di Ramsey Clark e co-autrice dell'eccezionale libro: 'Hidden
Agenda--the U.S.-NATO takeover of Yugoslavia' - commenta i vergognosi
tentativi, da parte del "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia, di impedire che
Milosevic si autodifenda dalle accuse mossegli...
---( 1 )---
http://www.espritdecorps.ca/new_page_231.htm
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/izbor/jugoslavija/2004-08-17.html
Behind Bars with Slobodan Milosevic
By Scott Taylor
ESPRIT DE CORPS - August 16, 2004
Esprit de Corps publisher and military author Scott Taylor has agreed
to testify at The Hague War Crime Tribunal at the request of former
Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. In preparation for his upcoming
court appearance, Taylor spent six hours behind bars with the indicted
war criminal who serves as his own legal counsel. Taylor writes of his
experience.
“How would you like your coffee?” Even as I answered, the whole
situation was so surreal. Here was Slobodan Milosevic, the former
President of Serbia and an indicted war criminal, making me a Nescafe
in a plastic cup. Having reported on the Balkan wars for the past 12
years, Mr. Milosevic had, for me, always been a somewhat larger than
life figure throughout that period. Whether he was loved by the
million-plus crowd that chanted “Slobo! Slobo!” in June 1989, or hated
by the similar-size angry mob that ousted him from power in October
2000.
Now I was suddenly face to face with the man in a prison cell. The
whole experience was surprisingly casual. It was definitely unnerving,
almost like seeing the curtain pulled back on the wizard of Oz. To be
fair, I must point out that I was not there to interview Mr Milosevic,
rather, I was the one being questioned.
Under the terms of his incarceration, the former Serbian president is
not allowed to meet with media or make public statements. In order for
me to have access to the prisoner I had to sign a very strict
non-disclosure agreement that prevents me from describing any aspect of
the actual detention facility in which Mr. Milosevic is being detained
nor can I speak of “The health of the accused, including his mental
health and physical appearance.”
While I obviously cannot describe in detail the actual set of security
measures at the detention facility, I would simply advise any future
witnesses to be sure to wear clean underwear on the day of their visit.
While not intrusive the searches were thorough.
As for his person, I believe that I can safely mention that Mr.
Milosevic wore a plaid shirt buttoned to the top and casual slacks, but
I cannot reveal any detail that would describe his mood or emotions
during our six-hour meeting.
Another rule forbids me from disclosing “Any other information relating
to … any detainee other than the accused.” However, I do not think that
it would be a violation of these guidelines to point out that when Mr.
Milosevic came into contact with other Serbian prisoners he was greeted
cordially as “Slobo” and was introduced respectfully to their visiting
family members.
I also don’t think I’m violating the spirit of the signed agreement by
stating that Mr. Milosevic speaks excellent if somewhat accented
English. The only confusion we had during our conversation was when he
discussed Canadian Justice Louise Arbour’s indictment of Milosevic on
26 May 1999. I mentioned that at that time I was actually in Belgrade
reporting on the NATO air strikes. As chief prosecutor for the newly
formed was crimes tribunal, Arbour had startled the world with her
surprise mid-war announcement of the Serbian President’s indictment.
“That was funny.” I heard him say, but when I questioned his response
Milosevic corrected himself. “Phoney” he said and after a moment’s
hesitation, he added “and funny too.”
There is also a strict guideline whereby The Hague Tribunal can deny
access to a visitor if they believe their purpose is “to obtain
information which may be subsequently only reported in the media.”
However, I am not prevented from discussing my personal experience and
potential testimony, which was the reason for my visit to The Hague.
The genesis of this trip began when I received a telephone call from
Belgrade in mid-July. The caller, Branko Rakic, identified himself as a
legal assistant to Slobodan Milosevic. He advised me that three of my
books- Tested Mettle, Inat and Diary of an Uncivil War had been
obtained by the defense team and submitted to The Hague’s International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as evidence. Mr.
Rakic also told me that Mr. Milosevic wished to interview me as a
potential witness and I was told upfront that I would not be compelled
to testify. My cooperation would have to be voluntary.
From a personal standpoint, I naturally had reservations about
appearing before such a tribunal, particularly as I have frequently
questioned the impartiality and legitimacy of such a post-war judicial
process –established and funded by the victors to determine the guilt
of the defeated. However, as a journalist and author, having spent so
many years covering the complex Balkan conflict, the prospect of
meeting one of the central figures was too powerful a lure to decline.
The entire administration process of becoming a Tribunal witness was
also fascinating. Following the formal request for an interview by
Milosevic’s team, the travel arrangements were then processed by the
ICTY’s Witness and Victims Section. Approximately 34 clerks and field
workers are assigned to facilitate such visits to The Hague. While the
cloak-and-dagger precautions – from coded signs held by the airport
guide to the anonymous hotel registration –seemed somewhat excessive,
they served to remind me of the magnitude of the crimes committed and
of the far-reaching power of many of the accused. Many of the witnesses
actually appear under the condition of Tribunal protection. While this
option was offered to me, given that my books are public documents I
declined.
As the Tribunal is technically in recess throughout the month of
August, I happened to be the only witness called during this particular
72 hour period. When the cases are being heard the Witness and Victims
Section handles as many as 30-40 individuals a day. For privacy and
security reasons they are housed in a number of different hotels
located throughout the city.
My hotel happened to be located very close to the detention center and
only meters from The Hague’s beaches. As one of northern Europe’s most
popular seaside resorts, there were thousands of topless bathers making
the most of the mid-summer heat wave just a half kilometre from the war
crimes prison. Perhaps fortunately for the inmates, the packed beaches
cannot be seen over the red bricked walls of their confines.
Judging from the volumes of documents and books cluttering his desk and
bookshelves, Mr. Milosevic would have little time for such
distractions. He has only until August 31 to prepare and finalize his
defence, and he plans to call several hundred witnesses. Included in
his wish list are a number of potentially ‘hostile’ witnesses such as;
Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and former NATO spokeperson Jamie Shea. While
there is little chance that any of them would willingly agree to
testify, the request to compel their attendance will be a difficult
challenge to the prosecutors. Not that there is any shortage of legal
expertise arrayed to contest such a challenge. The number of lawyers
and researchers on the prosecution team is estimated to consist of
several hundred personnel – a large percentage of whom are Canadians.
Although he is representing himself in this case, Mr. Milosevic is
being assisted by a very small team of legal supporters and
researchers. They operate with only a minimum of financial assistance
from the Tribunal, and most of their financial support comes from
private donations-mostly by Serbian expatriates, including several
Canadians.
Researcher Cathrin Schuetz accompanied me when I met with Mr.
Milosevic. The 33-year-old German political science graduate commutes
by train from her hometown near Frankfurt-a five-hour trip to The Hague
– to process potential witnesses. “We operate on a shoestring budget,”
she explained, “but we believe that everything must be done to try and
achieve a fair trial.”
One of the things most disconcerting to the small defence team is that
the Tribunal is once again trying to impose its own legal counsel on
Mr. Milosevic. “They say that it is for health reasons, but that is not
true,” said Ms. Schuetz.
“They told him ten days before his defence was supposed to begin that
the trial was postponed. He stopped his preparations of their orders,
but the Tribunal did not inform the media,” continued Ms. Schuetz. “
Instead, they allowed foreign journalists to register and then brought
Mr. Milosevic to the trial chamber on the original date. When he
explained that he was not prepared because of the health restriction,
the Tribunal used this as further proof that they must impose counsel
on him. It was courtroom theatrics.”
In addition, members of his defence team allege that events are being
orchestrated to deliberately isolate Mr. Milosevic with the aim of
heightening his stress levels.
“Following the indictment of Mira [Markovic] in Serbia last year,
Slobodan has not been allowed to see his wife,” said Ms. Schuetz. “This
only further isolated him and denied him personal support.” In most
published accounts concerning the Milosevics, they were always
described a “inseparable” and considered “soul mates.” While she
conducted her own political career, her Party was always seen as an
extension of her husband’s Socialists. When Slobodan was first handed
over to The Hague, Mira would make frequent trips to visit him in jail
and to attend the tribunal hearings.
Next week, on 20 August, Mr. Milosevic will mark his 63rd birthday
alone in his cell. This will be his fourth such non-celebration since
his handover to The Hague on June 28, 2001.
The hundreds of witnesses Mr. Milosevic intends to call also includes a
large number of Canadians. While I cannot disclose any information as
to their identities or potential testimony, Mr. Milosevic will be
tabling evidence in his defence from all aspects of the Balkan wars-
dating back to the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990.
For my part, the evidence cited from my books concerns a number of
issues pertaining to the atrocities witnessed by Canadian troops
serving in Bosnia and Croatia between 1992 and 1995. One incident of
particular interest to Mr. Milosevic was the September 1993
confrontation in the Medak Pocket. Although Canadian soldiers had
engaged Croatian troops and officially recorded the atrocities the
Croats had committed against Serbian villagers, many of the key
participants were never brought to justice before The Hague.
Furthermore, one of those responsible in the massacre ended up playing
a lead role –with NATO’s blessing –in the 1999 conflict in Kosovo.
The Milosevic defence team recognized my role in first breaking the
previously untold story of the Medak (with David Pugliese of the Ottawa
Citizen) in the fall of 1996. The events of the Medak Pocket were also
detailed in my books Tested Mettle: Canada’s Peacekeepers at War (1998)
and Inat: Images of Serbia and the Kosovo Conflict (2001).
While some of my peers have already questioned me as to why I would
take the stand to defend an alleged war criminal, when I discovered the
nature of my intended testimony I realized that I would simply be
defending the stories I had already written. I believe it would
undermine any journalist’s credibility if he or she was to refuse to
stand by their reports under such circumstances.
When I was finally ushered out of the detention center at the
conclusion of our meeting, Slobodan Milosevic was taken by the guards
back to his private cell. In addition to making coffee for witnesses,
the ex-president in now apparently responsible for preparing his own
meals.
Esprit de Corps © 2002-2004
---( 2 )---
http://www.iacenter.org/milos_ctsilence.htm
Hague court tries to silence Milosevic
By Sara Flounders
6 July 2004
As powerful defense case is about to open - Hague court tries to stop
Milosevic from representing himself at trial.
Despite objections from former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic,
the NATO-created International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) at The Hague stopped him on July 5 from presenting
the defense half of his trial based on Milosevic's medical problems.
Milosevic's supporters call this an attempt to use his medical
condition to "silence the truth."
Tiphaine Dickson, an attorney from Canada who is assisting Milosevic's
supporters, said, "The Prosecutor is attempting, yet again, to force
President Milosevic to accept legal counsel to represent him, using his
poor health as an excuse. President Milosevic has insisted that he
represent himself from the onset. Within the U.S., the Supreme Court
has recognized this as a right under the Sixth Amendment to the
Constitution. To refuse to allow him this right would turn the already
illegal ICTY hearings into a star-chamber proceeding."
In a conversation with his aide Vladimir Krsljanin regarding the latest
developments, Milosevic said, "This illegal court is daring to judge
biological and medical issues after they have proven incapable of
judging legal and historical issues. This court is like the
Inquisition."
The defense was finally set to open after two years of prosecution
testimony that included some 300 witnesses hostile to President
Milosevic. Many observers believe that the prosecution has failed to
present credible witnesses who can connect the defendant with the
crimes with which he has been charged.
Madeleine Albright, who was U.S. secretary of state during the 1999
U.S.-NATO war against Yugoslavia, was seen in The Hague at the ICTY
building on July 5. Supporters of Milosevic believe that her presence
is connected with the court's decision to postpone the trial and its
attempt to change the rules.
Milosevic’s long-time aide, Vladimir Krsljanin, speaking from Belgrade
on July 5, said, "What we have seen at The Hague is the worse kind of
political theater. It is a legal outrage directed at the president.
Slobodan Milosevic was brought to trial while he was suffering bad
health conditions. Despite our pleas and complaints and the petitions
of medical experts to the ICTY, it refused our demands for more time
for preparation and rest for President Milosevic."
"First the court created conditions that worsened his health and now
they are using his ill health to justify stifling his presentation of
his powerful defense case," said Krsljanin.
In a recent document, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has
made himself clear on the issue of Milosevic’s right to defend himself:
"President Milosevic chose to 'defend himself in person,' a fundamental
human right recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights."
On the prisoner's health and the ICTY's responsibility, Clark wrote in
a recent document: 'In the interest of truth, fairness in fact and
appearance, justice and respect for international law and
organizations, Slobodan Milosevic must be afforded medical and health
care, living conditions that protect his well being, require
presentation of prosecution evidence through witness testimony and
provide the time and means necessary to present his defense in a fair
trial in the absence of the abolition of the ICTY."
Prosecution case: Two years long -
The ICTY opened the prosecution case in February 2002 after a year of
preparation. At that time, the ICTY and the media presented the
Milosevic case as "the trial of the century." That's when the
prosecution hoped to use it as a show trial to convict the Yugoslav
leader and blame him and the entire Serb people for the wars in the
Balkans.
Within the first month, however, Milosevic had so ably handled his
political and legal presentation, and had so effectively cross-examined
hostile witnesses that many reporters had to admit that publicity on
the case damaging NATO’s justification for the war.
Throughout the two years of prosecution that ended last February,
President Milosevic was plagued by high blood pressure and a heart
ailment. The court delayed proceedings, but refused to release him from
the harsh prison conditions or to give him the medical care of his
choice.
The ICTY allowed Milosevic only 90 days to prepare his defense and was
to allow only 150 days for him to present it, half the time the court
took for the prosecution. Any time there is a delay for his health, the
court refuses to allow him access to any papers or books or to
interview potential witnesses at leisure. He even lost 50 of the 90
days preparation for this reason.
As part of his defense case, Milosevic was preparing to call as
witnesses a number of political analysts and activists who have
written, spoken and organized against U.S. and NATO intervention in the
Balkans. Some of these potential witnesses have contributed articles to
'Hidden Agenda--the U.S.-NATO takeover of Yugoslavia,' edited by John
Catalinotto and Sara Flounders and published in 2002 by the
International Action Center (IAC).
Flounders, who is a co-director of the IAC, was among those scheduled
to be among the early witnesses and met with Milosevic in The Hague on
June 28. She said that, "The attempt to remove Milosevic as his own
attorney is an admission of President Milosevic's innocence of the
war-crimes charges and of the U.S. and NATO guilt in planning,
executing and carrying out a 10-year war that broke a strong and
successful Yugoslav Federation up into a half-dozen weak colonies and
neo-colonies subservient to the United States and Western Europe.
“Just as the weapons of mass destruction have never been found in
Iraq,” Flounders continued, "the charge of massacres, mass graves and
genocide proved to be an utter fabrication in Kosovo. It is essential
that President Milosevic have a full opportunity expose NATO's war
crimes and to defend Yugoslavia and to answer these charges against his
government."
Contact numbers:
Sara Flounders International Action Center
(212) 633-6646 x 27,
Maitre Tiphaine Dickson of Canada, assisting the
International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan
Milosevic, is ready to deliver press statements:
450-263-7974,
Vladimir Krsljanin, who is Milosevic’s closest aide and
head of the Sloboda (Freedom) organization:
381-63-886-2301 (Belgrade),
Distributed by:
International Action Center
39 West 14th St., #206, New York, NY, 10011
Tel: 212-633-6646, Fax: 212-633-2889, www.iacenter.org
<http://www.iacenter.org/>
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
Data: Mar 17 Ago 2004 15:05:16 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia@ yahoogroups. com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Scott Taylor and Sarah Flounders
Scott Taylor and Sarah Flounders
1. Behind Bars with Slobodan Milosevic (By Scott Taylor)
Scott Taylor, saggista e giornalista canadese con una lunga esperienza
di cose balcaniche, e' tra le persone che hanno gia' accettato di
presentarsi all'Aia per testimoniare in favore di Slobodan Milosevic
alla ripresa del "processo". In questo articolo egli descrive sei ore
passate in una stanza del carcere dell'Aia insieme a Milosevic e ad una
macchinetta di caffe'...
2. Hague court tries to silence Milosevic (By Sara Flounders)
Sara Flounders - nota attivista dello statunitense International Action
Center di Ramsey Clark e co-autrice dell'eccezionale libro: 'Hidden
Agenda--the U.S.-NATO takeover of Yugoslavia' - commenta i vergognosi
tentativi, da parte del "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia, di impedire che
Milosevic si autodifenda dalle accuse mossegli...
---( 1 )---
http://www.espritdecorps.ca/new_page_231.htm
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/izbor/jugoslavija/2004-08-17.html
Behind Bars with Slobodan Milosevic
By Scott Taylor
ESPRIT DE CORPS - August 16, 2004
Esprit de Corps publisher and military author Scott Taylor has agreed
to testify at The Hague War Crime Tribunal at the request of former
Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. In preparation for his upcoming
court appearance, Taylor spent six hours behind bars with the indicted
war criminal who serves as his own legal counsel. Taylor writes of his
experience.
“How would you like your coffee?” Even as I answered, the whole
situation was so surreal. Here was Slobodan Milosevic, the former
President of Serbia and an indicted war criminal, making me a Nescafe
in a plastic cup. Having reported on the Balkan wars for the past 12
years, Mr. Milosevic had, for me, always been a somewhat larger than
life figure throughout that period. Whether he was loved by the
million-plus crowd that chanted “Slobo! Slobo!” in June 1989, or hated
by the similar-size angry mob that ousted him from power in October
2000.
Now I was suddenly face to face with the man in a prison cell. The
whole experience was surprisingly casual. It was definitely unnerving,
almost like seeing the curtain pulled back on the wizard of Oz. To be
fair, I must point out that I was not there to interview Mr Milosevic,
rather, I was the one being questioned.
Under the terms of his incarceration, the former Serbian president is
not allowed to meet with media or make public statements. In order for
me to have access to the prisoner I had to sign a very strict
non-disclosure agreement that prevents me from describing any aspect of
the actual detention facility in which Mr. Milosevic is being detained
nor can I speak of “The health of the accused, including his mental
health and physical appearance.”
While I obviously cannot describe in detail the actual set of security
measures at the detention facility, I would simply advise any future
witnesses to be sure to wear clean underwear on the day of their visit.
While not intrusive the searches were thorough.
As for his person, I believe that I can safely mention that Mr.
Milosevic wore a plaid shirt buttoned to the top and casual slacks, but
I cannot reveal any detail that would describe his mood or emotions
during our six-hour meeting.
Another rule forbids me from disclosing “Any other information relating
to … any detainee other than the accused.” However, I do not think that
it would be a violation of these guidelines to point out that when Mr.
Milosevic came into contact with other Serbian prisoners he was greeted
cordially as “Slobo” and was introduced respectfully to their visiting
family members.
I also don’t think I’m violating the spirit of the signed agreement by
stating that Mr. Milosevic speaks excellent if somewhat accented
English. The only confusion we had during our conversation was when he
discussed Canadian Justice Louise Arbour’s indictment of Milosevic on
26 May 1999. I mentioned that at that time I was actually in Belgrade
reporting on the NATO air strikes. As chief prosecutor for the newly
formed was crimes tribunal, Arbour had startled the world with her
surprise mid-war announcement of the Serbian President’s indictment.
“That was funny.” I heard him say, but when I questioned his response
Milosevic corrected himself. “Phoney” he said and after a moment’s
hesitation, he added “and funny too.”
There is also a strict guideline whereby The Hague Tribunal can deny
access to a visitor if they believe their purpose is “to obtain
information which may be subsequently only reported in the media.”
However, I am not prevented from discussing my personal experience and
potential testimony, which was the reason for my visit to The Hague.
The genesis of this trip began when I received a telephone call from
Belgrade in mid-July. The caller, Branko Rakic, identified himself as a
legal assistant to Slobodan Milosevic. He advised me that three of my
books- Tested Mettle, Inat and Diary of an Uncivil War had been
obtained by the defense team and submitted to The Hague’s International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as evidence. Mr.
Rakic also told me that Mr. Milosevic wished to interview me as a
potential witness and I was told upfront that I would not be compelled
to testify. My cooperation would have to be voluntary.
From a personal standpoint, I naturally had reservations about
appearing before such a tribunal, particularly as I have frequently
questioned the impartiality and legitimacy of such a post-war judicial
process –established and funded by the victors to determine the guilt
of the defeated. However, as a journalist and author, having spent so
many years covering the complex Balkan conflict, the prospect of
meeting one of the central figures was too powerful a lure to decline.
The entire administration process of becoming a Tribunal witness was
also fascinating. Following the formal request for an interview by
Milosevic’s team, the travel arrangements were then processed by the
ICTY’s Witness and Victims Section. Approximately 34 clerks and field
workers are assigned to facilitate such visits to The Hague. While the
cloak-and-dagger precautions – from coded signs held by the airport
guide to the anonymous hotel registration –seemed somewhat excessive,
they served to remind me of the magnitude of the crimes committed and
of the far-reaching power of many of the accused. Many of the witnesses
actually appear under the condition of Tribunal protection. While this
option was offered to me, given that my books are public documents I
declined.
As the Tribunal is technically in recess throughout the month of
August, I happened to be the only witness called during this particular
72 hour period. When the cases are being heard the Witness and Victims
Section handles as many as 30-40 individuals a day. For privacy and
security reasons they are housed in a number of different hotels
located throughout the city.
My hotel happened to be located very close to the detention center and
only meters from The Hague’s beaches. As one of northern Europe’s most
popular seaside resorts, there were thousands of topless bathers making
the most of the mid-summer heat wave just a half kilometre from the war
crimes prison. Perhaps fortunately for the inmates, the packed beaches
cannot be seen over the red bricked walls of their confines.
Judging from the volumes of documents and books cluttering his desk and
bookshelves, Mr. Milosevic would have little time for such
distractions. He has only until August 31 to prepare and finalize his
defence, and he plans to call several hundred witnesses. Included in
his wish list are a number of potentially ‘hostile’ witnesses such as;
Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and former NATO spokeperson Jamie Shea. While
there is little chance that any of them would willingly agree to
testify, the request to compel their attendance will be a difficult
challenge to the prosecutors. Not that there is any shortage of legal
expertise arrayed to contest such a challenge. The number of lawyers
and researchers on the prosecution team is estimated to consist of
several hundred personnel – a large percentage of whom are Canadians.
Although he is representing himself in this case, Mr. Milosevic is
being assisted by a very small team of legal supporters and
researchers. They operate with only a minimum of financial assistance
from the Tribunal, and most of their financial support comes from
private donations-mostly by Serbian expatriates, including several
Canadians.
Researcher Cathrin Schuetz accompanied me when I met with Mr.
Milosevic. The 33-year-old German political science graduate commutes
by train from her hometown near Frankfurt-a five-hour trip to The Hague
– to process potential witnesses. “We operate on a shoestring budget,”
she explained, “but we believe that everything must be done to try and
achieve a fair trial.”
One of the things most disconcerting to the small defence team is that
the Tribunal is once again trying to impose its own legal counsel on
Mr. Milosevic. “They say that it is for health reasons, but that is not
true,” said Ms. Schuetz.
“They told him ten days before his defence was supposed to begin that
the trial was postponed. He stopped his preparations of their orders,
but the Tribunal did not inform the media,” continued Ms. Schuetz. “
Instead, they allowed foreign journalists to register and then brought
Mr. Milosevic to the trial chamber on the original date. When he
explained that he was not prepared because of the health restriction,
the Tribunal used this as further proof that they must impose counsel
on him. It was courtroom theatrics.”
In addition, members of his defence team allege that events are being
orchestrated to deliberately isolate Mr. Milosevic with the aim of
heightening his stress levels.
“Following the indictment of Mira [Markovic] in Serbia last year,
Slobodan has not been allowed to see his wife,” said Ms. Schuetz. “This
only further isolated him and denied him personal support.” In most
published accounts concerning the Milosevics, they were always
described a “inseparable” and considered “soul mates.” While she
conducted her own political career, her Party was always seen as an
extension of her husband’s Socialists. When Slobodan was first handed
over to The Hague, Mira would make frequent trips to visit him in jail
and to attend the tribunal hearings.
Next week, on 20 August, Mr. Milosevic will mark his 63rd birthday
alone in his cell. This will be his fourth such non-celebration since
his handover to The Hague on June 28, 2001.
The hundreds of witnesses Mr. Milosevic intends to call also includes a
large number of Canadians. While I cannot disclose any information as
to their identities or potential testimony, Mr. Milosevic will be
tabling evidence in his defence from all aspects of the Balkan wars-
dating back to the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990.
For my part, the evidence cited from my books concerns a number of
issues pertaining to the atrocities witnessed by Canadian troops
serving in Bosnia and Croatia between 1992 and 1995. One incident of
particular interest to Mr. Milosevic was the September 1993
confrontation in the Medak Pocket. Although Canadian soldiers had
engaged Croatian troops and officially recorded the atrocities the
Croats had committed against Serbian villagers, many of the key
participants were never brought to justice before The Hague.
Furthermore, one of those responsible in the massacre ended up playing
a lead role –with NATO’s blessing –in the 1999 conflict in Kosovo.
The Milosevic defence team recognized my role in first breaking the
previously untold story of the Medak (with David Pugliese of the Ottawa
Citizen) in the fall of 1996. The events of the Medak Pocket were also
detailed in my books Tested Mettle: Canada’s Peacekeepers at War (1998)
and Inat: Images of Serbia and the Kosovo Conflict (2001).
While some of my peers have already questioned me as to why I would
take the stand to defend an alleged war criminal, when I discovered the
nature of my intended testimony I realized that I would simply be
defending the stories I had already written. I believe it would
undermine any journalist’s credibility if he or she was to refuse to
stand by their reports under such circumstances.
When I was finally ushered out of the detention center at the
conclusion of our meeting, Slobodan Milosevic was taken by the guards
back to his private cell. In addition to making coffee for witnesses,
the ex-president in now apparently responsible for preparing his own
meals.
Esprit de Corps © 2002-2004
---( 2 )---
http://www.iacenter.org/milos_ctsilence.htm
Hague court tries to silence Milosevic
By Sara Flounders
6 July 2004
As powerful defense case is about to open - Hague court tries to stop
Milosevic from representing himself at trial.
Despite objections from former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic,
the NATO-created International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) at The Hague stopped him on July 5 from presenting
the defense half of his trial based on Milosevic's medical problems.
Milosevic's supporters call this an attempt to use his medical
condition to "silence the truth."
Tiphaine Dickson, an attorney from Canada who is assisting Milosevic's
supporters, said, "The Prosecutor is attempting, yet again, to force
President Milosevic to accept legal counsel to represent him, using his
poor health as an excuse. President Milosevic has insisted that he
represent himself from the onset. Within the U.S., the Supreme Court
has recognized this as a right under the Sixth Amendment to the
Constitution. To refuse to allow him this right would turn the already
illegal ICTY hearings into a star-chamber proceeding."
In a conversation with his aide Vladimir Krsljanin regarding the latest
developments, Milosevic said, "This illegal court is daring to judge
biological and medical issues after they have proven incapable of
judging legal and historical issues. This court is like the
Inquisition."
The defense was finally set to open after two years of prosecution
testimony that included some 300 witnesses hostile to President
Milosevic. Many observers believe that the prosecution has failed to
present credible witnesses who can connect the defendant with the
crimes with which he has been charged.
Madeleine Albright, who was U.S. secretary of state during the 1999
U.S.-NATO war against Yugoslavia, was seen in The Hague at the ICTY
building on July 5. Supporters of Milosevic believe that her presence
is connected with the court's decision to postpone the trial and its
attempt to change the rules.
Milosevic’s long-time aide, Vladimir Krsljanin, speaking from Belgrade
on July 5, said, "What we have seen at The Hague is the worse kind of
political theater. It is a legal outrage directed at the president.
Slobodan Milosevic was brought to trial while he was suffering bad
health conditions. Despite our pleas and complaints and the petitions
of medical experts to the ICTY, it refused our demands for more time
for preparation and rest for President Milosevic."
"First the court created conditions that worsened his health and now
they are using his ill health to justify stifling his presentation of
his powerful defense case," said Krsljanin.
In a recent document, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has
made himself clear on the issue of Milosevic’s right to defend himself:
"President Milosevic chose to 'defend himself in person,' a fundamental
human right recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights."
On the prisoner's health and the ICTY's responsibility, Clark wrote in
a recent document: 'In the interest of truth, fairness in fact and
appearance, justice and respect for international law and
organizations, Slobodan Milosevic must be afforded medical and health
care, living conditions that protect his well being, require
presentation of prosecution evidence through witness testimony and
provide the time and means necessary to present his defense in a fair
trial in the absence of the abolition of the ICTY."
Prosecution case: Two years long -
The ICTY opened the prosecution case in February 2002 after a year of
preparation. At that time, the ICTY and the media presented the
Milosevic case as "the trial of the century." That's when the
prosecution hoped to use it as a show trial to convict the Yugoslav
leader and blame him and the entire Serb people for the wars in the
Balkans.
Within the first month, however, Milosevic had so ably handled his
political and legal presentation, and had so effectively cross-examined
hostile witnesses that many reporters had to admit that publicity on
the case damaging NATO’s justification for the war.
Throughout the two years of prosecution that ended last February,
President Milosevic was plagued by high blood pressure and a heart
ailment. The court delayed proceedings, but refused to release him from
the harsh prison conditions or to give him the medical care of his
choice.
The ICTY allowed Milosevic only 90 days to prepare his defense and was
to allow only 150 days for him to present it, half the time the court
took for the prosecution. Any time there is a delay for his health, the
court refuses to allow him access to any papers or books or to
interview potential witnesses at leisure. He even lost 50 of the 90
days preparation for this reason.
As part of his defense case, Milosevic was preparing to call as
witnesses a number of political analysts and activists who have
written, spoken and organized against U.S. and NATO intervention in the
Balkans. Some of these potential witnesses have contributed articles to
'Hidden Agenda--the U.S.-NATO takeover of Yugoslavia,' edited by John
Catalinotto and Sara Flounders and published in 2002 by the
International Action Center (IAC).
Flounders, who is a co-director of the IAC, was among those scheduled
to be among the early witnesses and met with Milosevic in The Hague on
June 28. She said that, "The attempt to remove Milosevic as his own
attorney is an admission of President Milosevic's innocence of the
war-crimes charges and of the U.S. and NATO guilt in planning,
executing and carrying out a 10-year war that broke a strong and
successful Yugoslav Federation up into a half-dozen weak colonies and
neo-colonies subservient to the United States and Western Europe.
“Just as the weapons of mass destruction have never been found in
Iraq,” Flounders continued, "the charge of massacres, mass graves and
genocide proved to be an utter fabrication in Kosovo. It is essential
that President Milosevic have a full opportunity expose NATO's war
crimes and to defend Yugoslavia and to answer these charges against his
government."
Contact numbers:
Sara Flounders International Action Center
(212) 633-6646 x 27,
Maitre Tiphaine Dickson of Canada, assisting the
International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan
Milosevic, is ready to deliver press statements:
450-263-7974,
Vladimir Krsljanin, who is Milosevic’s closest aide and
head of the Sloboda (Freedom) organization:
381-63-886-2301 (Belgrade),
Distributed by:
International Action Center
39 West 14th St., #206, New York, NY, 10011
Tel: 212-633-6646, Fax: 212-633-2889, www.iacenter.org
<http://www.iacenter.org/>
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
UNA IMMENSA BANDIERA TRICOLORE COPRIVA IL DIDIETRO BUCATO DELLA
DOMINATRICE DEI MARI
Da: i s t c o m @yahoogroups.com
Data: Dom 8 Ago 2004 12:18:55 Europe/Rome
A: i s t c o m @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [istcom] la porta...erei italiana
Un commento a questa storia della portaerei italiana.
La cosa in sé è ridicola, una classica buffonata italiana, simile a
quella mussoliniana dei sommergibili.
Ve la racconto.
Fino al 30. aprile. 1940 la marina italiana era la più potente marina
militare del mondo, aveva infatti 100 sommergibili: nessun'altra
potenza aveva un cosi possente schieramento di sommergibili.
All'indomani dell'ingresso in guerra si rivelò appieno tutta la
inconsistenza di questi 100 sommergibili: nel Mediterraneo essi sono
assai poco efficaci e non avevano alcuno strumento di rilevazione a
bordo, per cui al pari della marina militare italiana - corazzate,
incrociatori, ecc. erano perfettamente in grado di individuare il
nemico anche nella notte più profonda non appena la bordata nemica la
centrava.
Furono così annientati decine di sommergibili, quaranta se li prese poi
Hitler, ma non assolsero ad un ruolo nel corso della guerra, mentre la
marina militare inglese nel giro di alcuni giorni affondò nei porti
italiani - Taranto, Napoli, Genova - la flotta militare italiana,
dimostrando di avere già nel 1940 il controllo assoluto e totale del
Mediterraneo.
La portaerei italiana è della stessa razza.
La portaerei in sé non riveste una importanza strategica, se non vi è
tutto il resto - incrociatori, corazzate, fregate, ecc. - e richiede
inoltre tutto un apparato di rifornimento, quindi navi cisterne in
grado di fornire sia gli aerei, che la portaerei stessa.
La portaerei italiana, bello aspectu sed cerebrum non habet, non è che
una media portaerei, giacché ha un limitato trasporto di aerei e per
quanto attiene gli aerei stessi sono di media potenza e quindi una
assai limitata capacità offensiva.
Una portaerei simile ha un senso solo come supporto alle grandi
portaerei, per azioni di medio raggio, di avanscoperta o
retroguardia ad una task force principale. Per intenderci.
Unitamente alla elaborazione di una nuova strategia militare basata
sulle truppe corazzate e la combinata carro armato-aereo per quanto
attiene la guerra terrestre, viene elaborata la combinata aereo-nave
per quanto attiene la guerra sui mari, il cui teorico è il generale
Nimitz. La portaerei diviene quindi un potente strumento di guerra solo
se in combinata con l'aereo e con tutte le altre navi da guerra assieme
alle quali costituisce la task force marina. Diversamente è solo un
pezzo di ferro che galleggia.
E' come avere possenti carri armati e poi avere il trasporto tramite
cavalli e muli, ossia l'ippotraino.
La marina militare italiana non è in grado di costituire una task
force. La portaerei quindi è solo uno spreco - o regalo - di soldi ed
una stupida, e mussoliniana, mi si conceda il termine, mostrata di
muscoli. Diviene regalo e non spreco se e solo se la portaerei italiana
si integra con la task force statunitense, che di recente ha ritirato
dal Mediterraneo alcune portaerei e nella prospettiva dello spostamento
della base navale in Germania nel Mediterraneo con ampliamento della
base militare Nato a Napoli.
Ma fermarsi qui sarebbe ingeneroso verso l'intelligenza e la
genialità italiana, che ha dato prova di sé in maniera superlativa in
questa occasione, superando veramente se stessa: cosa assai difficile.
Ma come si sa il genio italico non ha limiti e confini.
In tutta la storia degli uomini, mai una nave è stata varata ed
inaugurata non ancora pronta.
Ed infatti tale portaerei non è finita e sarà consegnata nel 2007 ed è
stata inaugurata con la parte posteriore non completata, aperta, e dove
l'italica bandiera tricolore è stata chiamata a coprire tale vergogna.
Una inaugurazione con tanto di Capo di Stato, ministri e Stato
Maggiore (*) ma fasulla.
Certo, bisogna proprio stare a corto assai di argomenti, per
prestarsi a simili funzioni di coperchio!
istcom
06. 08. 2004
(*) Ed anche preti e vescovi: vedi sotto (ndCNJ)
http://www.liberazione.it/
Da "Liberazione" del 3 agosto 2004
L'arcivescovo di Genova al varo della nuova portaerei "Cavour",
strumento di morte
Quella benedizione e' una bestemmia
Quello che segue è l'articolo che don Tonio Dell'Olio, coordinatore
nazionale di Pax Christi, ha scritto in occasione del varo della nuova
portaerei italiana "Cavour", avvenuto a Genova lo scorso 20 luglio,
alla presenza del capo dello Stato.
Con in testa il presidente della Repubblica, e a seguire il ministro
della Difesa e il capo di Stato Maggiore della marina, oggi a Genova
inaugurano la nuova e più grande portaerei della Marina militare
italiana. La presenza del presidente della Repubblica dice da sola
della solennità che si vuole conferire al momento. Dice anche
dell'importanza e del significato di questa scelta che farà spendere
all'Italia un bel mucchio di soldi: 900 milioni di euro solo per il
momento. La portaerei infatti viene varata ma non ancora consegnata
alla Marina militare. La consegna avverrà nel 2007 allorquando la nave
sarà attrezzata di tutto punto dei suoi temibili strumenti di morte e
potrà solcare i mari per «essere impiegata in importanti missioni
all'estero» dice laconicamente il dispaccio del ministero. D'ora in poi
anche la Marina italiana potrà vantarsi di «poter finalmente puntare a
missioni internazionali a largo raggio». Aggiungendo poco dopo che la
portaerei «sarà in grado di ospitare anche i velivoli a decollo
orizzontale, come i nuovissimi Joint strike fighters (…) e un
sottosistema missilistico Saam-It Aster 15, due cannoni 76/62 "Davide"
per difesa a corto raggio, tre mitragliere da 25 millimetri Oto-Breda
(…)».
Come si vede si tratta di armamenti che sono molto lontani persino dal
normale impiego nelle cosiddette "missioni di pace" e che non
potrebbero in nessun modo essere considerate armi di difesa del
territorio, quanto di attacco. Il "pregio" di una portaerei infatti
consiste proprio nella possibilità di avvicinarsi all'obiettivo
permettendo l'operatività degli strumenti aeronautici giudicati
insostituibili per le guerre moderne e quelle del futuro. Il capo di
Stato Maggiore della Marina, l'ammiraglio Sergio Braghi, dopo aver
descritto le particolari tecnologie ultrasofisticate dell'imbarcazione
(velocità, capacità di alloggio, adattabilità alle diverse condizioni…)
ha esemplificato dicendo che «può raggiungere velocemente le coste del
Golfo Persico senza bisogno di rifornimento lungo il tragitto e
spendendo solo il 50% del carburante a sua disposizione».
Ma tutto questo rientra nella più classica della retorica militare. Se
rivedessimo oggi i filmati del Duce che inaugura i "temibili" armamenti
dell'epoca in dotazione al nostro esercito, rideremmo. Noi speriamo
sinceramente che anche i nostri nipoti un giorno potranno ridere
amaramente di noi commiserandoci.
Fin qui la retorica che speravamo definitivamente superata e che invece
ritroviamo puntuale e aggiornata. Una grande bandiera tricolore da
record avvolgerà lo scafo al momento del varo che vedrà come madrina di
eccezione una nobildonna discendente di Cavour.
Ma al di là della retorica il cerimoniale compassato prevedeo anche la
presenza dell'arcivescovo di Genova, il cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, già
presidente della commissione Cei Giustizia e Pace. Avrei sperato fosse
lì costretto esclusivamente dal dovere istituzionale dell'ospitalità
nei confronti del presidente della Repubblica e invece ancora il rigido
cerimoniale prevede la benedizione della portaerei.
Ho il vantaggio di scrivere quando l'evento non si è ancora consumato e
per questo lasciate che per un attimo mi lasci andare al sogno, al
desiderio di vedere finalmente i segni tangibili di una Chiesa che vive
per intero la profezia della pace.
Lasciate che pensi che il presule possa avere uno scatto di fierezza
evangelica e rifiutarsi di compiere quel gesto perché non si benedicono
mai gli strumenti di morte in nome del Dio vivente.
Il varo di una portaerei che sarà armata di tutto punto non è un segno
di fiducia e di speranza nel domani. E' una minaccia verso i popoli del
Mediterraneo e verso tutte le nazioni alle quali dovremmo piuttosto
aprirci con fiducia e senso di amicizia.
Non si benedice una portaerei perché è destinata a portare distruzione
e morte esattamente come Sua Eminenza si rifiuterebbe certo di benedire
la sala ospedaliera in cui si praticheranno le interruzioni di
gravidanza. Il comandamento tu non uccidere non ammette deroghe o
cedimenti perché sarebbe la negazione stessa della vita in cui splende
la presenza di Dio. In questo caso quella benedizione suonerebbe come
una bestemmia!
Non si benedice uno strumento di morte che ha già ucciso tutti coloro
che sarebbero stati salvati dalla morte per fame o malattia se quei 900
milioni di euro fossero stati investiti in programmi di sviluppo.
La benedizione cristiana poi in questo senso sarebbe di certo una
contraddizione più grande di una portaerei.
Nel nome del Padre che è il creatore si benedirebbe forse un simbolo
tanto potente della de-creazione?
Nel nome del Figlio che ci salva dalla morte offrendo se stesso alla
morte e perdonando i suoi uccisori, si benedice uno strumento che
pretende di salvarci arrecando la morte agli altri?
Nel nome dello Spirito Santo che vivifica e sostiene il mondo intero,
si può mai benedire ciò che sopprime ogni alito di vita?
Per queste ragioni voglio continuare a sperare e a pregare affinché il
cardinal Bertone scelga piuttosto di pronunciare un discorso e una
preghiera a favore della pace, della comprensione tra i popoli, del
rispetto dei diritti e della giustizia, della promozione e del
riconoscimento della dignità di ciascuna donna e ciascun uomo che
abitano questo pianeta. Questa vita, delle donne e degli uomini che
lavorano, sperano, si affaticano, amano, sorridono, danzano e cadono,
il Signore si degna ancora di ricolmare di benedizioni.
Tonio Dell'Olio
DOMINATRICE DEI MARI
Da: i s t c o m @yahoogroups.com
Data: Dom 8 Ago 2004 12:18:55 Europe/Rome
A: i s t c o m @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [istcom] la porta...erei italiana
Un commento a questa storia della portaerei italiana.
La cosa in sé è ridicola, una classica buffonata italiana, simile a
quella mussoliniana dei sommergibili.
Ve la racconto.
Fino al 30. aprile. 1940 la marina italiana era la più potente marina
militare del mondo, aveva infatti 100 sommergibili: nessun'altra
potenza aveva un cosi possente schieramento di sommergibili.
All'indomani dell'ingresso in guerra si rivelò appieno tutta la
inconsistenza di questi 100 sommergibili: nel Mediterraneo essi sono
assai poco efficaci e non avevano alcuno strumento di rilevazione a
bordo, per cui al pari della marina militare italiana - corazzate,
incrociatori, ecc. erano perfettamente in grado di individuare il
nemico anche nella notte più profonda non appena la bordata nemica la
centrava.
Furono così annientati decine di sommergibili, quaranta se li prese poi
Hitler, ma non assolsero ad un ruolo nel corso della guerra, mentre la
marina militare inglese nel giro di alcuni giorni affondò nei porti
italiani - Taranto, Napoli, Genova - la flotta militare italiana,
dimostrando di avere già nel 1940 il controllo assoluto e totale del
Mediterraneo.
La portaerei italiana è della stessa razza.
La portaerei in sé non riveste una importanza strategica, se non vi è
tutto il resto - incrociatori, corazzate, fregate, ecc. - e richiede
inoltre tutto un apparato di rifornimento, quindi navi cisterne in
grado di fornire sia gli aerei, che la portaerei stessa.
La portaerei italiana, bello aspectu sed cerebrum non habet, non è che
una media portaerei, giacché ha un limitato trasporto di aerei e per
quanto attiene gli aerei stessi sono di media potenza e quindi una
assai limitata capacità offensiva.
Una portaerei simile ha un senso solo come supporto alle grandi
portaerei, per azioni di medio raggio, di avanscoperta o
retroguardia ad una task force principale. Per intenderci.
Unitamente alla elaborazione di una nuova strategia militare basata
sulle truppe corazzate e la combinata carro armato-aereo per quanto
attiene la guerra terrestre, viene elaborata la combinata aereo-nave
per quanto attiene la guerra sui mari, il cui teorico è il generale
Nimitz. La portaerei diviene quindi un potente strumento di guerra solo
se in combinata con l'aereo e con tutte le altre navi da guerra assieme
alle quali costituisce la task force marina. Diversamente è solo un
pezzo di ferro che galleggia.
E' come avere possenti carri armati e poi avere il trasporto tramite
cavalli e muli, ossia l'ippotraino.
La marina militare italiana non è in grado di costituire una task
force. La portaerei quindi è solo uno spreco - o regalo - di soldi ed
una stupida, e mussoliniana, mi si conceda il termine, mostrata di
muscoli. Diviene regalo e non spreco se e solo se la portaerei italiana
si integra con la task force statunitense, che di recente ha ritirato
dal Mediterraneo alcune portaerei e nella prospettiva dello spostamento
della base navale in Germania nel Mediterraneo con ampliamento della
base militare Nato a Napoli.
Ma fermarsi qui sarebbe ingeneroso verso l'intelligenza e la
genialità italiana, che ha dato prova di sé in maniera superlativa in
questa occasione, superando veramente se stessa: cosa assai difficile.
Ma come si sa il genio italico non ha limiti e confini.
In tutta la storia degli uomini, mai una nave è stata varata ed
inaugurata non ancora pronta.
Ed infatti tale portaerei non è finita e sarà consegnata nel 2007 ed è
stata inaugurata con la parte posteriore non completata, aperta, e dove
l'italica bandiera tricolore è stata chiamata a coprire tale vergogna.
Una inaugurazione con tanto di Capo di Stato, ministri e Stato
Maggiore (*) ma fasulla.
Certo, bisogna proprio stare a corto assai di argomenti, per
prestarsi a simili funzioni di coperchio!
istcom
06. 08. 2004
(*) Ed anche preti e vescovi: vedi sotto (ndCNJ)
http://www.liberazione.it/
Da "Liberazione" del 3 agosto 2004
L'arcivescovo di Genova al varo della nuova portaerei "Cavour",
strumento di morte
Quella benedizione e' una bestemmia
Quello che segue è l'articolo che don Tonio Dell'Olio, coordinatore
nazionale di Pax Christi, ha scritto in occasione del varo della nuova
portaerei italiana "Cavour", avvenuto a Genova lo scorso 20 luglio,
alla presenza del capo dello Stato.
Con in testa il presidente della Repubblica, e a seguire il ministro
della Difesa e il capo di Stato Maggiore della marina, oggi a Genova
inaugurano la nuova e più grande portaerei della Marina militare
italiana. La presenza del presidente della Repubblica dice da sola
della solennità che si vuole conferire al momento. Dice anche
dell'importanza e del significato di questa scelta che farà spendere
all'Italia un bel mucchio di soldi: 900 milioni di euro solo per il
momento. La portaerei infatti viene varata ma non ancora consegnata
alla Marina militare. La consegna avverrà nel 2007 allorquando la nave
sarà attrezzata di tutto punto dei suoi temibili strumenti di morte e
potrà solcare i mari per «essere impiegata in importanti missioni
all'estero» dice laconicamente il dispaccio del ministero. D'ora in poi
anche la Marina italiana potrà vantarsi di «poter finalmente puntare a
missioni internazionali a largo raggio». Aggiungendo poco dopo che la
portaerei «sarà in grado di ospitare anche i velivoli a decollo
orizzontale, come i nuovissimi Joint strike fighters (…) e un
sottosistema missilistico Saam-It Aster 15, due cannoni 76/62 "Davide"
per difesa a corto raggio, tre mitragliere da 25 millimetri Oto-Breda
(…)».
Come si vede si tratta di armamenti che sono molto lontani persino dal
normale impiego nelle cosiddette "missioni di pace" e che non
potrebbero in nessun modo essere considerate armi di difesa del
territorio, quanto di attacco. Il "pregio" di una portaerei infatti
consiste proprio nella possibilità di avvicinarsi all'obiettivo
permettendo l'operatività degli strumenti aeronautici giudicati
insostituibili per le guerre moderne e quelle del futuro. Il capo di
Stato Maggiore della Marina, l'ammiraglio Sergio Braghi, dopo aver
descritto le particolari tecnologie ultrasofisticate dell'imbarcazione
(velocità, capacità di alloggio, adattabilità alle diverse condizioni…)
ha esemplificato dicendo che «può raggiungere velocemente le coste del
Golfo Persico senza bisogno di rifornimento lungo il tragitto e
spendendo solo il 50% del carburante a sua disposizione».
Ma tutto questo rientra nella più classica della retorica militare. Se
rivedessimo oggi i filmati del Duce che inaugura i "temibili" armamenti
dell'epoca in dotazione al nostro esercito, rideremmo. Noi speriamo
sinceramente che anche i nostri nipoti un giorno potranno ridere
amaramente di noi commiserandoci.
Fin qui la retorica che speravamo definitivamente superata e che invece
ritroviamo puntuale e aggiornata. Una grande bandiera tricolore da
record avvolgerà lo scafo al momento del varo che vedrà come madrina di
eccezione una nobildonna discendente di Cavour.
Ma al di là della retorica il cerimoniale compassato prevedeo anche la
presenza dell'arcivescovo di Genova, il cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, già
presidente della commissione Cei Giustizia e Pace. Avrei sperato fosse
lì costretto esclusivamente dal dovere istituzionale dell'ospitalità
nei confronti del presidente della Repubblica e invece ancora il rigido
cerimoniale prevede la benedizione della portaerei.
Ho il vantaggio di scrivere quando l'evento non si è ancora consumato e
per questo lasciate che per un attimo mi lasci andare al sogno, al
desiderio di vedere finalmente i segni tangibili di una Chiesa che vive
per intero la profezia della pace.
Lasciate che pensi che il presule possa avere uno scatto di fierezza
evangelica e rifiutarsi di compiere quel gesto perché non si benedicono
mai gli strumenti di morte in nome del Dio vivente.
Il varo di una portaerei che sarà armata di tutto punto non è un segno
di fiducia e di speranza nel domani. E' una minaccia verso i popoli del
Mediterraneo e verso tutte le nazioni alle quali dovremmo piuttosto
aprirci con fiducia e senso di amicizia.
Non si benedice una portaerei perché è destinata a portare distruzione
e morte esattamente come Sua Eminenza si rifiuterebbe certo di benedire
la sala ospedaliera in cui si praticheranno le interruzioni di
gravidanza. Il comandamento tu non uccidere non ammette deroghe o
cedimenti perché sarebbe la negazione stessa della vita in cui splende
la presenza di Dio. In questo caso quella benedizione suonerebbe come
una bestemmia!
Non si benedice uno strumento di morte che ha già ucciso tutti coloro
che sarebbero stati salvati dalla morte per fame o malattia se quei 900
milioni di euro fossero stati investiti in programmi di sviluppo.
La benedizione cristiana poi in questo senso sarebbe di certo una
contraddizione più grande di una portaerei.
Nel nome del Padre che è il creatore si benedirebbe forse un simbolo
tanto potente della de-creazione?
Nel nome del Figlio che ci salva dalla morte offrendo se stesso alla
morte e perdonando i suoi uccisori, si benedice uno strumento che
pretende di salvarci arrecando la morte agli altri?
Nel nome dello Spirito Santo che vivifica e sostiene il mondo intero,
si può mai benedire ciò che sopprime ogni alito di vita?
Per queste ragioni voglio continuare a sperare e a pregare affinché il
cardinal Bertone scelga piuttosto di pronunciare un discorso e una
preghiera a favore della pace, della comprensione tra i popoli, del
rispetto dei diritti e della giustizia, della promozione e del
riconoscimento della dignità di ciascuna donna e ciascun uomo che
abitano questo pianeta. Questa vita, delle donne e degli uomini che
lavorano, sperano, si affaticano, amano, sorridono, danzano e cadono,
il Signore si degna ancora di ricolmare di benedizioni.
Tonio Dell'Olio
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
[ Tre articoli tratti dal giornale marxista statunitense Workers World,
a proposito degli sviluppi del "processo" dell'Aia nel contesto piu'
generale della crisi internazionale e delle lotte contro l'imperialismo
e la guerra... ]
Source: Workers World - http://www.workers.org/ww/
1. EDITORIAL: Bush & NATO (FRANCAIS + ENGLISH)
2. WHY HAGUE COURT WANTS TO SILENCE MILOSEVIC
(By John Catalinotto)
3. LET MILOSEVIC HAVE A FAIR FIGHT
---( 1 - FRANCAIS )---
Bush et l'OTAN
Worker's World, ed. du 8 juillet 2004
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/edit0708.php
tradution par alerte-otan:
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/alerte_otan/messages
Le gang Bush a été si arrogant en menant unilatéralement la puissance
militaire US en Irak, que la demande de Bush pour avoir l'aide de
l'OTAN pourrait erronément être vue comme une étape vers la paix. Ce
serait une mauvaise compréhension grossière du rôle de l'OTAN. L'OTAN
n'est pas une organisation internationale de 'maintien de la paix'.
C'est une alliance militaire conduite par les USA et les puissances
coloniales européennes plus anciennes, dirigées contre les travailleurs
et les nations opprimées.
Les USA ont fondé l'OTAN en 1949 pour maintenir la révolution
socialiste hors d'Europe occidentale, et pour menacer l'Union
Soviétique. Elle a également garanti un rôle dominant à la politique
étrangère US à l'égard de ses alliés européens. La structure de l'OTAN
a des officiers US au sommet, et les puissances impérialistes plus
faibles de l'Europe Occidentale on subordonné leurs intérêts
individuels à la confrontation avec le camp socialiste. Aussi longtemps
que l'URSS et le Pacte de Varsovie existaient, l'OTAN n'a pas mené
d'attaques militaires. Elle ne le pouvait pas. Mais les plans de l'OTAN
ont formé la base du coup d'état fasciste des colonels grecs en 1967.
Des agents de l'OTAN ont travaillé avec les militaristes et les
fascistes en Italie pour semer la terreur dans les années 70. Les
armées de l'OTAN ont menacé d'intervenir contre la révolution
portugaise e, 1974-1975, si les travailleurs avaient tenté de prendre
le pouvoir.
L'effondrement de l'URSS en 1989-1991 a laissé les États-Unis avec un
problème vis-à-vis de l'OTAN. Les stratèges US voulaient prendre ce
pacte anti-soviétique et le transformer en une arme pour l'intervention
en Europe de l'Est, en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient. Cela laisserait les
USA au siège de commandement pour les interventions militaires, mais
engagerait sur le terrain les Anglais, les Français, les Allemands et
les autres rivaux impérialistes.
La première grande zone d'intervention a été les Balkans. Pouvant
compter sur la puissance aérienne US, l'OTAN a fait sa première
intervention militaire de la période post-soviétique contre le peuple
de Yougoslavie, bombardant impitoyablement les cibles civiles pendant
78 jours en 1999, pour le 50e anniversaire de l'OTAN. Cela a prouvé une
fois de plus que l'OTAN était un pacte entre puissances prédatrices,
aspirant à oppresser et à exploiter la grande majorité des gens sur la
terre. A la fin de cette guerre les grandes puissances ont taillé le
Kosovo hors de la Serbie, se partageant le butin, tout juste comme les
puissances coloniales l'avaient fait lorsqu'elles avaient découpé
l'Afrique.
L'aventure du gang Bush en Irak a été un pas plus loin que l'OTAN.
Cela a été une tentative de piller un pays sans partager le butin avec
les rivaux des USA. L'échec de Bush en Irak a forcé la classe
dirigeante états-unienne à se tourner à nouveau vers l'OTAN, que Bush
ou Kerry soit à la Maison Blanche l'année prochaine.
Le procès Milosevic.
Avec l'OTAN qui va vraisemblablement continuer à être un point
principal de la politique étrangère US, ce serait un bon moment pour le
mouvement progressiste d'accorder de l'attention au procès contre
l'ancien président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic à La Haye. Après 3 ans
dans une ancienne prison Nazi, et une parade de 300 témoins à charge
qui n'ont rien su prouver contre lui, Milosevic commence sa défense en
juillet. Et même durant deux années de contre-interrogatoires des
témoins de l'accusation, Milosevic a réussi à montrer l'agression de
l'OTAN. Sa défense va probablement montrer au monde les crimes de
guerre de l'OTAN dans les Balkans.
---( 1 - ENGLISH )---
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/edit0708.php
EDITORIAL
Bush & NATO
Reprinted from the July 8, 2004,
issue of Workers World newspaper
The Bush gang has been so arrogant in wielding unilateral U.S. military
power in Iraq that Bush's request for help from NATO might falsely look
like a step toward peace. That would be a gross misunderstanding of
NATO's role. NATO is no
international organization of "peacekeepers." It's a military alliance
led by the U.S. and the older colonial powers in Europe, aimed at the
workers and oppressed nations.
The U.S. founded NATO in 1949 to keep socialist revolution away from
Western Europe and to threaten the Soviet Union. It also guaranteed a
leading role for U.S. foreign policy with regard to its European
allies. The NATO structure had U.S. officers at the top, and the weaker
imperialist powers in Western Europe subordinated their individual
interests to the confrontation with the socialist camp.
As long as the USSR and the Warsaw Pact existed, NATO made no military
attacks. It couldn't. But NATO plans formed the basis for the
pro-fascist coup of Greek colonels in 1967. NATO agents worked with the
militarists and fascists in Italy to sow terror in the 1970s. NATO
armies threatened to intervene against the Portuguese revolution in
1974-1975 should the workers there attempt to seize power.
The collapse of the USSR in 1989-1991 left the U.S. with a problem
regarding NATO. U.S. strategists wanted to take this anti-Soviet pact
and turn it into a weapon for intervention in Eastern Europe, Africa
and the Middle East. This would leave the U.S. in the driver's seat
regarding military intervention, but would enlist the British, French,
German and other imperialist rivals in the ground armies taking
casualties.
The first major area of intervention was the Balkans. With reliance on
U.S. air power, NATO made its first military intervention in the
post-Soviet period against the people of Yugoslavia, bombing civilian
targets mercilessly for 78 days in 1999 on NATO50th anniversary. It
proved once more that NATO was a pact of predatory powers, aimed at
oppressing and exploiting the vast majority of the world's people. At
the end of that war, it was fitting and symbolic that the major powers
carved up Serbia's Kosovo province, sharing the spoils just as the
19th-century colonial powers did when they carved up Africa.
The Bush gang's adventure in Iraq went a step beyond NATO. It was an
attempt to plunder a country without sharing the spoils with U.S.
rivals. Bush's failure in Iraq has forced the U.S. ruling class to look
back toward NATO, whether Bush or Kerry is in the White House next year.
The Milosevic case
With NATO likely to continue as a major focus of U.S. foreign policy,
it would be a good time for the progressive movement here to pay
attention to the case against former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic in The Hague. After three years in an old Nazi prison and a
parade of 300 prosecution witnesses who proved nothing against him,
Milosevic is opening his defense case in July. Even during the last two
years of cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses, Milosevic managed
to expose NATO's aggression. His defense will likely expose to the
world NATO's own war crimes in the Balkans.
---( 2 )---
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/milosevic0715.php
WHY HAGUE COURT WANTS TO SILENCE MILOSEVIC
By John Catalinotto
Reprinted from the July 15, 2004,
issue of Workers World newspaper
July 10, 2004--The NATO-created International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague took ominous new
steps July 5 to restrict former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's
right to represent himself. The ICTY used Milosevic's real health
problems as an excuse to justify depriving him of his rights.
The following day the court ruled that his trial would resume on
July 14, but that it would assign a cardiologist to monitor
Milosevic's health in preparation for forcing him to accept assigned
counsel.
Milosevic has been imprisoned for three years in The Hague in a
place where the Nazis held resistance fighters. For two years he
cross- examined some 300 prosecution witnesses. He was about to
begin his defense case. Though he was to be restricted to 150 days in
court, the former president was prepared to present a powerful
case exposing U.S. and NATO crimes in his country and exonerating
himself and the Yugoslav people.
Milosevic told the media and the court that he would never accept
an appointed counsel and he insisted on continuing his own
defense. "This illegal court is daring to judge biological and
medical issues after they have proven incapable of judging legal and
historical issues," he said. "This court is like the Inquisition."
Madeleine Albright, who was U.S. secretary of state during the
1999 U.S.- NATO war against Yugoslavia, was seen in The Hague at
the ICTY building on July 5. Albright is known as "the mother of
the ICTY." Supporters of Milosevic believe her presence is connected
with the court's decision to postpone the trial and its attempt to
change the rules.
Milosevic's long-time aide, Vladimir Krsljanin, said from Belgrade
on July 5, "What we have seen at The Hague is the worst kind of
political theater and legal outrage directed at the president.
Slobodan Milosevic was brought to trial while he was suffering bad
health conditions. Despite our pleas and complaints and the
petitions of medical experts to the ICTY, it refused our demands
for more time for preparation and rest for President Milosevic.
"First the court created conditions that worsened his health, and
now they are using his ill health to justify stifling his
presentation of his powerful defense case," said Krsljanin.
CHANGING THE RULES
The ICTY opened the prosecution case in February 2002 after a year
of preparation. The well-funded and staffed court set its own
rules for the proceedings. It allowed Milosevic to represent
himself, as he insisted.
At that time, the ICTY and the media presented the Milosevic case
as "the trial of the century." That's when the prosecution hoped
to use it as a show trial to convict the Yugoslav leader and blame
him and the entire Serb people for the wars in the Balkans.
Within the first month, however, Milosevic had so ably handled his
political and legal presentation, and had so effectively
cross-examined hostile witnesses, that many reporters had to admit the
case against the Serb leader was weak to non-existent. Publicity
on the case was damaging NATO's justification for the war.
Throughout the two years of prosecution that ended last February,
President Milosevic was plagued by high blood pressure and a heart
ailment. Dozens of doctors pleaded for a more humane treatment of
the president. The court delayed proceedings, but refused to release
him from the harsh prison conditions or give him the medical care
of his choice.
Though prosecutors took a year to prepare their case and two to
present it, the ICTY allowed Milosevic only 90 days to prepare his
defense and was to allow only 150 days for him to present it. Any
time there is a delay for his health, the court refuses to allow him
access to any papers or books or to interview potential witnesses
at leisure. He lost 51 of the 90 days preparation when he
complained of bad health.
As part of his defense case, Milosevic intended to call U.S.
President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and
other NATO leaders as witnesses so he could charge them for the
war crimes NATO committed against Yugoslavia.
He also planned to call a number of political analysts and
activists who have written, spoken and organized against U.S. and
NATO intervention in the Balkans. Some of these potential witnesses
participated in the Peoples Tribunal on Yugoslavia organized by the
International Action Center (IAC) in 1999-2000.
Faced with the embarrassment of a powerful political exposure of
NATO and U.S. leaders, the ICTY, like a schoolyard bully who keeps
getting beaten at his own game, decided to change the rules and
refuse to allow Milosevic to defend himself.
One potential witness was Sara Flounders, a co-director of the IAC
and an editor of the IAC book, "Hidden Agenda: the U.S.-NATO
Takeover of Yugoslavia." Flounders was scheduled to testify early.
She met with Milosevic in The Hague on June 28.
Flounders said that "The attempt to remove President Milosevic as
his own attorney is an admission of his innocence of the war
crimes charges and of U.S. and NATO guilt in planning, executing
and carrying out a 10-year war that broke up a strong and successful
Yugoslav Federation into a half-dozen weak colonies and
neo-colonies subservient to the United States and Western Europe.
"Just as the weapons of mass destruction have never been found in
Iraq," Flounders continued, "the charge of massacres, mass graves
and genocide proved to be an utter fabrication in Kosovo. It is
essential that President Milosevic have a full opportunity to
expose NATO's war crimes, to defend Yugoslavia and to answer these
charges against his government."
IAC founder and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark made
himself clear on the issue of Milosevic's right to defend himself:
"President Milosevic chose to 'defend himself in person,' a
fundamental human right recognized by the Inter national Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights."
Tiphaine Dickson, an attorney from Canada who is assisting the
Inter national Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic,
said, "Within the U.S., the Supreme Court has recognized this as a
right under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. To refuse to allow
him this right would turn the already illegal ICTY hearings into a
star-chamber proceeding."
---( 3 )---
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/edit30729.php
LET MILOSEVIC HAVE A FAIR FIGHT
Reprinted from the July 29, 2004
issue of Workers World newspaper
Conquering a new colony, the Roman legions drag the defeated chieftain
back to the Colosseum. They offer a final challenge: "We will bury you
up to your neck in sand and set the lion on you. If you defeat him, you
will be set free."
As the lion leaps on him, the chieftain ducks and then bites the lion
in the groin. The lion bleeds to death. "Now you must free me," he says.
"Not so fast," counters a Legionnaire. "You didn't fight fair."
For those who follow the case of former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic, this enraging old "joke" hits home. Yugoslavia's imperialist
conquerors dragged the defeated leader to NATO's court in The Hague,
which spent tens of millions of dollars, prepared for a year, put on
295 prosecution witnesses over two years and proved nothing.
That's the reason most people have probably heard little of what was
supposed to be the "war crimes trial of the century."
Ill much of the time, Milosevic worked with the aid of a handful of
supporters and little money before hostile judges who make up the rules
as they go along. He still demolished the prosecution by exposing
"witnesses" as stool pigeons and war criminals trading lies for
immunity.
Milosevic had only 50 days to prepare his defense. He was set to expose
U.S./NATO war crimes against Yugoslavia. Like the Romans in the story,
the court changed the rules. The illness Milosevic complained of for
two years suddenly became useful to the judges. Instead of giving him
time and care to recover, they now threaten to stop him from
representing himself.
For "fairness," for historic truth, the court must give Milosevic time
off to recover his health, time to prepare his case, and the right to
defend himself in court.
---
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via email: ww@ wwpublish.com. Subscribe wwnews-on@
wwpublish.com. Unsubscribe wwnews-off@ wwpublish.com. Support
independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
[ Tre articoli tratti dal giornale marxista statunitense Workers World,
a proposito degli sviluppi del "processo" dell'Aia nel contesto piu'
generale della crisi internazionale e delle lotte contro l'imperialismo
e la guerra... ]
Source: Workers World - http://www.workers.org/ww/
1. EDITORIAL: Bush & NATO (FRANCAIS + ENGLISH)
2. WHY HAGUE COURT WANTS TO SILENCE MILOSEVIC
(By John Catalinotto)
3. LET MILOSEVIC HAVE A FAIR FIGHT
---( 1 - FRANCAIS )---
Bush et l'OTAN
Worker's World, ed. du 8 juillet 2004
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/edit0708.php
tradution par alerte-otan:
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/alerte_otan/messages
Le gang Bush a été si arrogant en menant unilatéralement la puissance
militaire US en Irak, que la demande de Bush pour avoir l'aide de
l'OTAN pourrait erronément être vue comme une étape vers la paix. Ce
serait une mauvaise compréhension grossière du rôle de l'OTAN. L'OTAN
n'est pas une organisation internationale de 'maintien de la paix'.
C'est une alliance militaire conduite par les USA et les puissances
coloniales européennes plus anciennes, dirigées contre les travailleurs
et les nations opprimées.
Les USA ont fondé l'OTAN en 1949 pour maintenir la révolution
socialiste hors d'Europe occidentale, et pour menacer l'Union
Soviétique. Elle a également garanti un rôle dominant à la politique
étrangère US à l'égard de ses alliés européens. La structure de l'OTAN
a des officiers US au sommet, et les puissances impérialistes plus
faibles de l'Europe Occidentale on subordonné leurs intérêts
individuels à la confrontation avec le camp socialiste. Aussi longtemps
que l'URSS et le Pacte de Varsovie existaient, l'OTAN n'a pas mené
d'attaques militaires. Elle ne le pouvait pas. Mais les plans de l'OTAN
ont formé la base du coup d'état fasciste des colonels grecs en 1967.
Des agents de l'OTAN ont travaillé avec les militaristes et les
fascistes en Italie pour semer la terreur dans les années 70. Les
armées de l'OTAN ont menacé d'intervenir contre la révolution
portugaise e, 1974-1975, si les travailleurs avaient tenté de prendre
le pouvoir.
L'effondrement de l'URSS en 1989-1991 a laissé les États-Unis avec un
problème vis-à-vis de l'OTAN. Les stratèges US voulaient prendre ce
pacte anti-soviétique et le transformer en une arme pour l'intervention
en Europe de l'Est, en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient. Cela laisserait les
USA au siège de commandement pour les interventions militaires, mais
engagerait sur le terrain les Anglais, les Français, les Allemands et
les autres rivaux impérialistes.
La première grande zone d'intervention a été les Balkans. Pouvant
compter sur la puissance aérienne US, l'OTAN a fait sa première
intervention militaire de la période post-soviétique contre le peuple
de Yougoslavie, bombardant impitoyablement les cibles civiles pendant
78 jours en 1999, pour le 50e anniversaire de l'OTAN. Cela a prouvé une
fois de plus que l'OTAN était un pacte entre puissances prédatrices,
aspirant à oppresser et à exploiter la grande majorité des gens sur la
terre. A la fin de cette guerre les grandes puissances ont taillé le
Kosovo hors de la Serbie, se partageant le butin, tout juste comme les
puissances coloniales l'avaient fait lorsqu'elles avaient découpé
l'Afrique.
L'aventure du gang Bush en Irak a été un pas plus loin que l'OTAN.
Cela a été une tentative de piller un pays sans partager le butin avec
les rivaux des USA. L'échec de Bush en Irak a forcé la classe
dirigeante états-unienne à se tourner à nouveau vers l'OTAN, que Bush
ou Kerry soit à la Maison Blanche l'année prochaine.
Le procès Milosevic.
Avec l'OTAN qui va vraisemblablement continuer à être un point
principal de la politique étrangère US, ce serait un bon moment pour le
mouvement progressiste d'accorder de l'attention au procès contre
l'ancien président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic à La Haye. Après 3 ans
dans une ancienne prison Nazi, et une parade de 300 témoins à charge
qui n'ont rien su prouver contre lui, Milosevic commence sa défense en
juillet. Et même durant deux années de contre-interrogatoires des
témoins de l'accusation, Milosevic a réussi à montrer l'agression de
l'OTAN. Sa défense va probablement montrer au monde les crimes de
guerre de l'OTAN dans les Balkans.
---( 1 - ENGLISH )---
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/edit0708.php
EDITORIAL
Bush & NATO
Reprinted from the July 8, 2004,
issue of Workers World newspaper
The Bush gang has been so arrogant in wielding unilateral U.S. military
power in Iraq that Bush's request for help from NATO might falsely look
like a step toward peace. That would be a gross misunderstanding of
NATO's role. NATO is no
international organization of "peacekeepers." It's a military alliance
led by the U.S. and the older colonial powers in Europe, aimed at the
workers and oppressed nations.
The U.S. founded NATO in 1949 to keep socialist revolution away from
Western Europe and to threaten the Soviet Union. It also guaranteed a
leading role for U.S. foreign policy with regard to its European
allies. The NATO structure had U.S. officers at the top, and the weaker
imperialist powers in Western Europe subordinated their individual
interests to the confrontation with the socialist camp.
As long as the USSR and the Warsaw Pact existed, NATO made no military
attacks. It couldn't. But NATO plans formed the basis for the
pro-fascist coup of Greek colonels in 1967. NATO agents worked with the
militarists and fascists in Italy to sow terror in the 1970s. NATO
armies threatened to intervene against the Portuguese revolution in
1974-1975 should the workers there attempt to seize power.
The collapse of the USSR in 1989-1991 left the U.S. with a problem
regarding NATO. U.S. strategists wanted to take this anti-Soviet pact
and turn it into a weapon for intervention in Eastern Europe, Africa
and the Middle East. This would leave the U.S. in the driver's seat
regarding military intervention, but would enlist the British, French,
German and other imperialist rivals in the ground armies taking
casualties.
The first major area of intervention was the Balkans. With reliance on
U.S. air power, NATO made its first military intervention in the
post-Soviet period against the people of Yugoslavia, bombing civilian
targets mercilessly for 78 days in 1999 on NATO50th anniversary. It
proved once more that NATO was a pact of predatory powers, aimed at
oppressing and exploiting the vast majority of the world's people. At
the end of that war, it was fitting and symbolic that the major powers
carved up Serbia's Kosovo province, sharing the spoils just as the
19th-century colonial powers did when they carved up Africa.
The Bush gang's adventure in Iraq went a step beyond NATO. It was an
attempt to plunder a country without sharing the spoils with U.S.
rivals. Bush's failure in Iraq has forced the U.S. ruling class to look
back toward NATO, whether Bush or Kerry is in the White House next year.
The Milosevic case
With NATO likely to continue as a major focus of U.S. foreign policy,
it would be a good time for the progressive movement here to pay
attention to the case against former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic in The Hague. After three years in an old Nazi prison and a
parade of 300 prosecution witnesses who proved nothing against him,
Milosevic is opening his defense case in July. Even during the last two
years of cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses, Milosevic managed
to expose NATO's aggression. His defense will likely expose to the
world NATO's own war crimes in the Balkans.
---( 2 )---
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/milosevic0715.php
WHY HAGUE COURT WANTS TO SILENCE MILOSEVIC
By John Catalinotto
Reprinted from the July 15, 2004,
issue of Workers World newspaper
July 10, 2004--The NATO-created International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague took ominous new
steps July 5 to restrict former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's
right to represent himself. The ICTY used Milosevic's real health
problems as an excuse to justify depriving him of his rights.
The following day the court ruled that his trial would resume on
July 14, but that it would assign a cardiologist to monitor
Milosevic's health in preparation for forcing him to accept assigned
counsel.
Milosevic has been imprisoned for three years in The Hague in a
place where the Nazis held resistance fighters. For two years he
cross- examined some 300 prosecution witnesses. He was about to
begin his defense case. Though he was to be restricted to 150 days in
court, the former president was prepared to present a powerful
case exposing U.S. and NATO crimes in his country and exonerating
himself and the Yugoslav people.
Milosevic told the media and the court that he would never accept
an appointed counsel and he insisted on continuing his own
defense. "This illegal court is daring to judge biological and
medical issues after they have proven incapable of judging legal and
historical issues," he said. "This court is like the Inquisition."
Madeleine Albright, who was U.S. secretary of state during the
1999 U.S.- NATO war against Yugoslavia, was seen in The Hague at
the ICTY building on July 5. Albright is known as "the mother of
the ICTY." Supporters of Milosevic believe her presence is connected
with the court's decision to postpone the trial and its attempt to
change the rules.
Milosevic's long-time aide, Vladimir Krsljanin, said from Belgrade
on July 5, "What we have seen at The Hague is the worst kind of
political theater and legal outrage directed at the president.
Slobodan Milosevic was brought to trial while he was suffering bad
health conditions. Despite our pleas and complaints and the
petitions of medical experts to the ICTY, it refused our demands
for more time for preparation and rest for President Milosevic.
"First the court created conditions that worsened his health, and
now they are using his ill health to justify stifling his
presentation of his powerful defense case," said Krsljanin.
CHANGING THE RULES
The ICTY opened the prosecution case in February 2002 after a year
of preparation. The well-funded and staffed court set its own
rules for the proceedings. It allowed Milosevic to represent
himself, as he insisted.
At that time, the ICTY and the media presented the Milosevic case
as "the trial of the century." That's when the prosecution hoped
to use it as a show trial to convict the Yugoslav leader and blame
him and the entire Serb people for the wars in the Balkans.
Within the first month, however, Milosevic had so ably handled his
political and legal presentation, and had so effectively
cross-examined hostile witnesses, that many reporters had to admit the
case against the Serb leader was weak to non-existent. Publicity
on the case was damaging NATO's justification for the war.
Throughout the two years of prosecution that ended last February,
President Milosevic was plagued by high blood pressure and a heart
ailment. Dozens of doctors pleaded for a more humane treatment of
the president. The court delayed proceedings, but refused to release
him from the harsh prison conditions or give him the medical care
of his choice.
Though prosecutors took a year to prepare their case and two to
present it, the ICTY allowed Milosevic only 90 days to prepare his
defense and was to allow only 150 days for him to present it. Any
time there is a delay for his health, the court refuses to allow him
access to any papers or books or to interview potential witnesses
at leisure. He lost 51 of the 90 days preparation when he
complained of bad health.
As part of his defense case, Milosevic intended to call U.S.
President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and
other NATO leaders as witnesses so he could charge them for the
war crimes NATO committed against Yugoslavia.
He also planned to call a number of political analysts and
activists who have written, spoken and organized against U.S. and
NATO intervention in the Balkans. Some of these potential witnesses
participated in the Peoples Tribunal on Yugoslavia organized by the
International Action Center (IAC) in 1999-2000.
Faced with the embarrassment of a powerful political exposure of
NATO and U.S. leaders, the ICTY, like a schoolyard bully who keeps
getting beaten at his own game, decided to change the rules and
refuse to allow Milosevic to defend himself.
One potential witness was Sara Flounders, a co-director of the IAC
and an editor of the IAC book, "Hidden Agenda: the U.S.-NATO
Takeover of Yugoslavia." Flounders was scheduled to testify early.
She met with Milosevic in The Hague on June 28.
Flounders said that "The attempt to remove President Milosevic as
his own attorney is an admission of his innocence of the war
crimes charges and of U.S. and NATO guilt in planning, executing
and carrying out a 10-year war that broke up a strong and successful
Yugoslav Federation into a half-dozen weak colonies and
neo-colonies subservient to the United States and Western Europe.
"Just as the weapons of mass destruction have never been found in
Iraq," Flounders continued, "the charge of massacres, mass graves
and genocide proved to be an utter fabrication in Kosovo. It is
essential that President Milosevic have a full opportunity to
expose NATO's war crimes, to defend Yugoslavia and to answer these
charges against his government."
IAC founder and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark made
himself clear on the issue of Milosevic's right to defend himself:
"President Milosevic chose to 'defend himself in person,' a
fundamental human right recognized by the Inter national Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights."
Tiphaine Dickson, an attorney from Canada who is assisting the
Inter national Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic,
said, "Within the U.S., the Supreme Court has recognized this as a
right under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. To refuse to allow
him this right would turn the already illegal ICTY hearings into a
star-chamber proceeding."
---( 3 )---
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/edit30729.php
LET MILOSEVIC HAVE A FAIR FIGHT
Reprinted from the July 29, 2004
issue of Workers World newspaper
Conquering a new colony, the Roman legions drag the defeated chieftain
back to the Colosseum. They offer a final challenge: "We will bury you
up to your neck in sand and set the lion on you. If you defeat him, you
will be set free."
As the lion leaps on him, the chieftain ducks and then bites the lion
in the groin. The lion bleeds to death. "Now you must free me," he says.
"Not so fast," counters a Legionnaire. "You didn't fight fair."
For those who follow the case of former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic, this enraging old "joke" hits home. Yugoslavia's imperialist
conquerors dragged the defeated leader to NATO's court in The Hague,
which spent tens of millions of dollars, prepared for a year, put on
295 prosecution witnesses over two years and proved nothing.
That's the reason most people have probably heard little of what was
supposed to be the "war crimes trial of the century."
Ill much of the time, Milosevic worked with the aid of a handful of
supporters and little money before hostile judges who make up the rules
as they go along. He still demolished the prosecution by exposing
"witnesses" as stool pigeons and war criminals trading lies for
immunity.
Milosevic had only 50 days to prepare his defense. He was set to expose
U.S./NATO war crimes against Yugoslavia. Like the Romans in the story,
the court changed the rules. The illness Milosevic complained of for
two years suddenly became useful to the judges. Instead of giving him
time and care to recover, they now threaten to stop him from
representing himself.
For "fairness," for historic truth, the court must give Milosevic time
off to recover his health, time to prepare his case, and the right to
defend himself in court.
---
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via email: ww@ wwpublish.com. Subscribe wwnews-on@
wwpublish.com. Unsubscribe wwnews-off@ wwpublish.com. Support
independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
ISLAMBOSNA.BA: PARTECIPERA' ANCHE ADRIANO SOFRI?
<< Nuovo Forum:
Benvenuti al sito Islambosna.com.
IslamBosna, se dio vorrà inizierà prossimamente a funzionare su questo
nuovo indirizzo: www.islambosna.ba.
Il nostro nuovo sito è in fase di elaborazione, ma una parte di esso è
già funzionante, perciò vi invitiamo a registrarvi affinché possiate
inserirvi nel lavoro di IslamBosna.ba.
Il vecchio Forum verrà archiviato e le discussioni custodite alla
lettura. Su esso non verranno promossi nuovi temi e rilasciate risposte.
Comunicateci la vostra collaborazione con IslamBosna e la
partecipazione nelle altre attività. Che Allah vi ricompensi con il più
alto dei premi.
Preghiamo Allah di farci combattenti per il suo credo e perché dell’
IslamBosna ne ricaviamo più ancora di più benefici nel futuro a favore
dell’Islam e dei mussulmani. >>
[ "Accolgo" l’invito, citando la frase di un sito in "bosgnacco":
Navali "ruljo" (Accorrete suditi)! Ivan ]
---
Dobro došli na IslamBosna.com
IslamBosna ce, ako Bog da, uskoro poceti raditi na novoj
adresiIslamBosna.ba.
Nas novi web site je u fazi konstrukcije, ali neki dijelovi su vec
poceli sa radom. Novi IslamBosna Forum vec radi pa vas pozivamo da se
registrujete na novom siteu kako bi ste se mogli ukljuciti u rad na
IslamBosna.ba
Stari Forum ce ostati arhiviran i diskusije sacuvane za citanje. Na
njemu vise nije moguce pokretati nove teme i davati odgovore.
Javite nam se ukoliko zelite raditi sa nama na IslamBosni i ucestvovati
u ostalim aktivnostima.
Neka vas Allah nagradi najvecom nagradom.
Molimo Allaha da nas ucini borcima za Allahovu Vjeru i da od IslamBosne
u buducnosti bude vise koristi za Islam i Muslimane nego do sada.
Korisni linkovi
Nova IslamBosna
Novi IslamBosna Forum
Stara pocetna stranica IslamBosne
Stari IslamBosna Forum
Ne zaboravite
www.islambosna.ba
<< Nuovo Forum:
Benvenuti al sito Islambosna.com.
IslamBosna, se dio vorrà inizierà prossimamente a funzionare su questo
nuovo indirizzo: www.islambosna.ba.
Il nostro nuovo sito è in fase di elaborazione, ma una parte di esso è
già funzionante, perciò vi invitiamo a registrarvi affinché possiate
inserirvi nel lavoro di IslamBosna.ba.
Il vecchio Forum verrà archiviato e le discussioni custodite alla
lettura. Su esso non verranno promossi nuovi temi e rilasciate risposte.
Comunicateci la vostra collaborazione con IslamBosna e la
partecipazione nelle altre attività. Che Allah vi ricompensi con il più
alto dei premi.
Preghiamo Allah di farci combattenti per il suo credo e perché dell’
IslamBosna ne ricaviamo più ancora di più benefici nel futuro a favore
dell’Islam e dei mussulmani. >>
[ "Accolgo" l’invito, citando la frase di un sito in "bosgnacco":
Navali "ruljo" (Accorrete suditi)! Ivan ]
---
Dobro došli na IslamBosna.com
IslamBosna ce, ako Bog da, uskoro poceti raditi na novoj
adresiIslamBosna.ba.
Nas novi web site je u fazi konstrukcije, ali neki dijelovi su vec
poceli sa radom. Novi IslamBosna Forum vec radi pa vas pozivamo da se
registrujete na novom siteu kako bi ste se mogli ukljuciti u rad na
IslamBosna.ba
Stari Forum ce ostati arhiviran i diskusije sacuvane za citanje. Na
njemu vise nije moguce pokretati nove teme i davati odgovore.
Javite nam se ukoliko zelite raditi sa nama na IslamBosni i ucestvovati
u ostalim aktivnostima.
Neka vas Allah nagradi najvecom nagradom.
Molimo Allaha da nas ucini borcima za Allahovu Vjeru i da od IslamBosne
u buducnosti bude vise koristi za Islam i Muslimane nego do sada.
Korisni linkovi
Nova IslamBosna
Novi IslamBosna Forum
Stara pocetna stranica IslamBosne
Stari IslamBosna Forum
Ne zaboravite
www.islambosna.ba
