Informazione
Live coverage at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/live/now4.ram
* AFP. 14 February 2002. Milosevic says war crimes proceedings
"political trial"; Milosevic charges West with "ocean of lies."
* AFP. 14 February 2002. Milosevic shows shock pics of Kosovo refugees
attacked by NATO; Milosevic too hopes to show videos during testimony:
laywer.
* BBC. 13 February 2002. TRANSCRIPT: MILOSEVIC ADDRESSES COURT
* AFP. 13 February 2002. Legal challenges raised by Milosevic at war
crimes trial.
* IAC SENDS SOLIDARITY DELEGATION TO OPENING OF "TRIAL" OF PRESIDENT
MILOSEVIC
* News from Jugoslav government sources
===*===
Subject: [ML-YU] Milosevic vs. ocean of NATO lies
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:45:55 -0500
From: Barry Stoller
AFP. 14 February 2002. Milosevic says war crimes proceedings "political
trial"; Milosevic charges West with "ocean of lies."
THE HAGUE -- Slobodan Milosevic told the war crimes court at The Hague
on Thursday in his defence statement that he was the victim of a
"political trial."
As he continued his defence statement, which blamed the West for
concocting an "ocean of lies" in order to carry out the 1999 NATO war on
Yugoslavia, he said: "The whole word knows that this is a political
trial."
He said: "There is not a single element of a fair trial ... there is an
enormous apparatus on one side, a vast media structure on that same
side.
"What's on my side? I only have a public telephone booth in prison.
That's the only thing I have available to face the most terrible kind of
libel against my country, my people and me."
In a confident statement that aimed to speak to world opinion as much as
the international court trying him for genocide, Milosevic said he was
the victim of a "criminal" and "political" trial bent only on vengeance.
He compared Yugoslavia's fight against ethnic Albanian rebels in Kosovo
to the US-led campaign in Afghanistan, arguing that his nation had done
just what the United States had when faced with terrorism.
"You basically have nothing," Milosevic scoffed at the prosecutors, who
argue he is personally responsible for mass murder and crimes against
humanity in the 1990s wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo.
Former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic opened his defense Thursday
by showing the UN war crimes court a video discussing the 1999 massacre
of ethnic Albanians in Racak, which triggered the NATO air war on
Yugoslavia.
The video, some of it taken from German television, showed a commentator
casting doubt on whether the dozens of ethnic Albanians killed were
civilians, and an interview with an observer who said there may have
been separatist fighters of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) among them.
"An important reason for the (NATO) war was the alleged massacre in
Racak. From the begining there were doubts with respect to that
question, doubts which, with the latest research, have become ever more
clear," the commentator said.
"The name of this village is Racak. The Serbs suffered a terrible
massacre here, a massacre which led to the attack by the NATO aviation,"
the commentator said in the video.
He also showed video of the NATO air strikes that began in March 1999,
where Serbs were seen huddled in bunkers, and other commentators saying
that there had been no "humanitarian catastrophe" in Yugoslavia before
those air strikes.
In a mirror image of the meticulous portraits of atrocities spelled out
by prosecutors in the first two days of the trial, Milosevic read aloud
a list of Yugoslav hospitals and schools reduced to rubble by the NATO
bombing.
He ridiculed prosecution arguments -- more than once asking if they
could not "come up with something more intelligent" -- and defiantly
said his people had made a "heroic defence" in the face of the NATO air
campaign.
Milosevic argued that Serb forces who fought Albanian guerrillas in the
province of Kosovo had been fighting an anti-terror war just like that
led by the United States in Afghanistan.
"The Americans go to the other side of the globe to fight terrorism, in
Afghanistan as a case in point, right to the other side of the world,
and that is considered to be logical and normal," Milosevic said.
"Whereas here the struggle against terrorism in one's very own country
is considered to be a crime," he said.
Milosevic on Thursday told his war crimes trial that NATO and the West
had fabricated an "ocean of lies" to back the 1999 war on Yugoslavia.
"This is just an atom of truth in the ocean of lies and the product of
propaganda and the use of global media as a means of war against my
country," Milosevic said after presenting a nearly hour-long video on
the Kosovo war.
The video cast doubt on the January 1999 massacre of ethnic Albanian
civilians in Racak and charged that the West fabricated allegations of a
Serbian plan to ethnically cleanse the province of its Albanian
population.
"This terrible fabrication," Milosevic argued, was used to whip up
public opinion in favor of a war against Yugoslavia.
Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians fled Kosovo to avoid NATO air
bombs in 1999, Milosevic contended.
"Now they wish to negate that fact by saying that they in fact fled from
Serb forces," he said.
"I consider the defense a heroic defense from the aggression launched by
NATO and the NATO pact," he said.
The prosecution charged in the first two days of the trial that
Milosevic was at the centre of a web of loyal local Serb leaders,
parliamentary forces and army commanders who carried out the crimes in
order to forge and ethnically pure "Greater Serbia" purged of all
non-Serbs.
"The events point towards a central personality, the existence of a
controlling human force," prosecutor Geoffrey Nice told the court
Wednesday. "It is a personality the accused seeks to say is not his, but
there is no other," he said.
Milosevic scorned the claim Thursday, saying: "He probably thinks I am
superhuman."
---
Subject: [ML-YU] Milosevic has his own photos to show
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:28:56 -0500
From: Barry Stoller
AFP. 14 February 2002. Milosevic shows shock pics of Kosovo refugees
attacked by NATO; Milosevic too hopes to show videos during testimony:
laywer.
THE HAGUE -- Former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic on Thursday
showed photographs of burnt bodies of what he said were ethnic Albanian
refugees killed by NATO bombs during the 1999 war in Yugoslavia.
Arguing that it was NATO and not Serb forces who were responsible for
the slaughter of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, Milosevic put on show
photographs of bodies of old men, women and children, charred bones and
body parts torn off during the attack and lying in pools of blood.
"These were mostly peasant women, villagers, killed and burned to death
as a result of a bomb," Milosevic said as he presented his defense at
the war crimes trial.
The bombing of the refugee column traveling from Djakovica to Prizen on
April 14, 1999 drew outrage from human rights groups, who also took
offense to NATO's description of the deaths as "collateral damage."
The photographs showed the bodies in fields, burnt corpses lying in
carts pulled by tractors, a head, hand or arm torn off in the attack,
Milosevic said.
The former head of state charged that NATO targeted civilians during its
air war against Yugoslavia.
"They were the priority targets of the evildoers who decided to
undertake this action," he said.
Milosevic will try to show video sequences during his defense Thursday,
to counter the shocking footage of mass graves, starving Bosnian Muslims
and deportations presented at the trial's opening by the prosecution, a
lawyer said.
"Milosevic will try to show video clips to counter the images shown
yesterday by the prosecution, but I don't know if the judges will permit
this," said Zdenko Tomanovic, a Belgrade lawyer helping Milosevic to
mount his case.
During nearly two days of opening statements by the prosecution, the
three-panel judges saw video footage of emaciated Bosnian Muslim men
behind barbed wire fences at a detention camp in northwest Bosnia in
1992.
The court also was shown film, taken by a local doctor, of ethnic
Albanians who had been killed in the Kosovo town of Izbica, as well as
deportations of Kosovars in military convoys.
---
Subject: [ML-YU] Milosevic transcript - full text
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:17:21 -0500
From: Barry Stoller
BBC. 13 February 2002. Transcript: Milosevic addresses court.
[This transcript is taken from a simultaneous translation of Mr
Milosevic's statement to the court, made in Serbian.]
Presiding Judge Richard May: You may sit or stand to address the court
whichever you prefer.
Slobodan Milosevic: Do you stop work this afternoon at four o'clock?
Judge May: We stop at four, so if you'd like to make a start now, we'll
adjourn then and you can go on tomorrow.
Slobodan Milosevic: I don't think there's any sense in me starting and
being interrupted half an hour later. I have spent two days listening to
the speeches made by the prosecution.
Judge May: Are you asking to start tomorrow morning - is that what you
want?
Slobodan Milosevic: You explained to me last time when we were here,
when we attended a status conference here, that I would have the right
to speak and as far as I was able to gather now, you are giving me that
right.
However, I consider that it would be logical for me to begin without
having to be interrupted less than half an hour hence. But I would like
to take advantage of this opportunity nonetheless.
Judge May: Very well, you can address us tomorrow. But what is it you'd
like to add?
Slobodan Milosevic: I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity
before I begin speaking and delivering my speech to say that as you know
several times here I have bought some legal aspects - I won't be
mentioning those in my speech proper but I have received no response or
answer from you.
You know full well that all international and national documents and
rules and regulations determine the fact that a court can be there to
judge only if it has been established on the basis of law and I have
broached the question of the legality of this tribunal. You did not
provide me with a response.
You delved into the question and looked into the aspects of court
authority although the competencies of the court are not the same thing
as the court's legality and I challenged the very legality of this
tribunal because it was not set up on the basis of the law.
The Security Council could not transfer the right that it does not have
to this tribunal and, therefore, this tribunal does not have the
competence to try.
I expect this tribunal, or rather you, to respond to those legal facts
and I had expected as one of the amici curia [literally "friends of the
court" and Mr Milosevic's legal representation], and suggested that you
seek the advice of the International Court of Justice, which you failed
to do.
I consider that this is a question of prime importance. It is of
principled importance, both for international law and for justice in
general and that it will have to be resolved. I think that I have
sufficiently expounded and explained the issue when I sent you a lengthy
text with all the points that set out my arguments and I also did so
orally here.
The second point that I wish to raise and wish to clarify is that at the
status conference that was held here I raised the question of my illegal
arrest and the representative of the tribunal had a part in that.
It took place in Belgrade. It violated the constitution of Serbia and
the constitution of Yugoslavia and the Federal Government tabled its
resignation because of that and criminal law suits have been the result
in Yugoslavia - they've been filed and on the other hand I do know that
every court is duty bound to deal with the habeas corpus question before
the start of trials.
You failed to take that into account nor did you schedule a hearing with
that respect and which rule you were duty bound to do based on the rules
and regulations.
Those questions are regulated by all human rights and political rights
declarations - universal ones and European, American and others - and
you as men of the law are well acquainted with that and through your own
practice as well, you have become acquainted with that because you have
been discussing the question of unlawful arrest in other cases.
So this has been a great omission on your part. You were duty bound to
call a hearing with respect to the unlawful arrest that took place ove
my person and with respect to the fact that I was brought here on the
basis of a crime having been committed. A crime which is not only
treated in the laws of my own country but it is an issue treated in the
laws of all states and is present in all international conventions and
so on and so forth.
Furthermore, I also wish to question [something] which you too did not
wish to resolve and I put forth many arguments to clear up my point. I
said that we cannot speak of a fair trial and an equitable trial here
especially an unbiased stand on the part of the prosecution.
You know that in 1990 the United Nations Congress adopted its own set of
instructions with respect to prosecution and the prosecutor. Those were
general guideline demanding that there must be n prejudice and that
there must be impartiality.
From everything that we have heard here so far, we have become more than
convinced that not only is it partial but your prosecutor has proclaimed
my sentence and judgement and the prosecution has orchestrated a media
campaign that has been waged and organised. It is a parallel trial
through the media which along with this unlawful tribunal are there to
play the role of a parallel lynch process. Which, in advance without any
insight...
Judge May: I'm going to interrupt you. What do you mean by saying that
the prosecutor has proclaimed your sentence and judgement?
Slobodan Milosevic: In public and the previous prosecutor at a meeting
with Albright said - they both said - that they were engaged in the same
business or job and the indictment itself was raised on the basis of the
constructions of the British intelligence service during the war against
Yugoslavia and we know full well that intelligence services only give
out selective information and details - those that they are able to rig
and not those which are not to their advantage and so on and so forth.
There are many arguments that could be raised here but at all events I
should like to indicate to you that you did not discuss these matters
nor did you make a decision of any kind. You did not call upon the
International Court of Justice as to the illegalities of the issue and
you did not schedule a hearing which you were duty bound to do on the
basis of habeas corpus and on the basis of the fact that your
representative took part in the...
Judge May: Mr Milosevic you indicated earlier that you wanted to make
your submissions tomorrow - that's apparently not the case because you
wanted to address us today.
But the matters on which you are choosing to address us are matters upon
which we have already ruled. As you would know, if you'd taken the
trouble to read our decisions. You had the right of appeal - you did not
take it.
The matters, therefore, have all been dealt with and your views about
the tribunal are now completely irrelevant as far as these proceedings
are concerned. All the matters you raised, you've argued before and we
have ruled upon and there is no need for them to be raised again in
these proceedings. We will hear the rest of your arguments and
submissions tomorrow morning.
---
Subject: [ML-YU] Legal challenges raised by Milosevic
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:42:56 -0500
From: Barry Stoller
AFP. 13 February 2002. Legal challenges raised by
Milosevic at war crimes trial.
THE HAGUE -- Herewith some of the legal challenges
raised Wednesday by
Slobodan Milosevic against the UN war crimes
tribunal, which is trying
him for genocide and crimes against humanity:
LEGALITY
Milosevic said the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established in 1993,
had "no competence" to try him and was manifestly illegal.
In a controversial ruling on November 8 last year,
the court itself decided it was competent to hear the
case against Milosevic, who is faced with 66 charges
on three indictments covering events in Bosnia,
Croatia and Kosovo.
Commentators have noted that Milosevic signed the
1995 Dayton accords, ending the Bosnian and
Croatian wars, and that those accords implicitly
recognised the ICTY's legitimacy.
Some experts say the UN Security Council, which
established the court, had no legal right to
establish a judicial body because the UN charter
gives the council no such mandate.
IMPARTIALITY
Milosevic said the court had already decided he was
guilty, and had he not been cut off, would, presumably,
have gone into previous arguments that NATO and the
West were responsible for their own atrocities with
the killing of civilians during the 1999 bombing of
Yugoslavia.
Chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte decided not to
open a formal investigation into the NATO
bombardments, which left scores of civilians
dead and raised accusations of political bias
against the Serbs.
Milosevic's successor, Yugoslav President Vojislav
Kostunica, said that ruling cast a "great shadow"
over the court's credibility.
ARREST
Milosevic said his arrest in Belgrade last June by
Serbian police for extradition to The Hague was
illegal and a violation of the constitutions of
Serbia and Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia's constitutional court had ruled the
extradition was illegal.
Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic sidestepped
the court by invoking a law, ironically implemented
by Milosevic himself, giving Serbia the
right to overrule decisions by the federation if
they interfered with Serbian interests.
In the political row that ensued, Yugoslav Prime
Minister Zoran Zizic and his Montenegrin allies
in the federal government resigned in protest.
---
Subject: Newsletter FREE SLOBO ! - n° 12
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:20:28 +0100 (CET)
From: ICDSM <icdsminfonet@...>
IAC SENDS SOLIDARITY DELEGATION TO OPENING OF
"TRIAL" OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) is set to open a so-called trial of
former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic on Feb.
12 at The Hague, Netherlands. The International Action
Center (IAC), based in the United States, has sent a
delegation to take part in activities showing solidarity with the
defendant and opposing the "trial" as a NATO frame up.
"With this trial," said International Action Center (IAC)
representative Bill Doares from Amsterdam, "Washington
and its NATO allies hopes to pin the guilt for the 10
years of civil war in the Balkans on the Yugoslav leader. The
goal of these big powers is to shift the blame for the war
they fomented onto the victims, the Serbian people and all
the other peoples of Yugoslavia."
The delegation will be participating in meetings and
press conferences denouncing the ICTY in Amsterdam and The
Hague on Feb. 11 and Feb. 12. They will also attend the
trial to hear President Milosevic's opening statement, which is
expected to be a political defense of his people and
their role in the war.
Speaking boldly in his own defense before an ICTY
hearing on Jan. 30, President Milosevic said this to the
officials appointed to judge him:
"With all due respect, the real judges of this trial-not
you who wear the robes-want to bet those who decided to
murder children in my country, who launched NATO's
aggression and dropped 25,000 tons of bombs in 78 days,
murdering mostly elderly people, children and women.
This is the role they would like to play, but they will not
be allowed to be the judges."
"The Yugoslav president is confident that if the people
know the truth, they will rally against the NATO court,"
said Doares. "The truth, for example, that U.S./NATO bombs
and rockets destroyed much of Yugoslav industry in Serbia,
while killing only 14 tanks in Kosovo, where war crimes
were alleged to be taking place."
---
MILOSEVIC TRIAL STARTS
BELGRADE, Feb 13 ( Beta) - The trial of former Yugoslav president
Slobodan
Milosevic for crimes against humanity in Kosovo and Croatia and genocide
and other crimes in Bosnia, began at the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia on Feb. 12
Milosevic will first be prosecuted for crimes in Kosovo. After the
prosecutor's and Milosevic's opening statements, which could last up to
three days, witnesses will be heard.
Milosevic was taken into detention at The Hague on June 26, last year.
The
trial has a historical importance for the victims, the peoples of the
former Yugoslavia, international law and justice.
British prosecutor Geoffrey Nice said that Milosevic had made a
considerable effort to cover his participation in crimes in Bosnia.
LIVE BROADCAST OF MILOSEVIC TRIAL, SVILANOVIC
KIEV, Feb 12 (Tanjug) - The whole trial of former Yugoslav president
Slobodan Milosevic should be broadcast live, Yugoslav Foreign Minister
Goran Svilanovic said during a visit to Kiev, Ukrainian news agency
Interfax said.
Svilanovic added that the trial should be made fully public to the
citizens
of Yugoslavia so that they can assure themselves it is fair.
He said that a television broadcast with a translation was important as
the
only way for most people in Yugoslavia to learn about all the details.
"We will follow the trial very carefully," Svilanovic said and added
that
the Milosevic trial was a political issue for Yugoslavia.
DJINDJIC SAYS OFFICIALS ACCUSED WITH MILOSEVIC MUST BE EXTRADITED
BELGRADE, Feb 13 ( Beta) - Serbian Premier Zoran Djindjic said on Feb.
12
that four former top officials, accused together with Milosevic for war
crimes in Kosovo, must be extradited to the international war crimes
tribunal.
Djindjic told Austrian journalists reporting on Austrian President
Thomas
Klestil's visit, in Belgrade that, "This does not have an alternative."
"I favor cooperation and oppose any risk to our country. Were they
honest
they would have surrendered themselves. If they have nothing to hide
then
this will be revealed," Djindjic was quoted as saying by the Austrian
APA
news service.
Commenting on the start of Slobodan Milosevic's trial, Djindjic
indicated
that the extradition of Serbian President Milan Milutinovic, Nikola
Sainovic, Vlajko Stojiljkovic and Dragoljub Ojdanic "is no problem." "We
have our laws," he said.
Djindjic said a bigger problem would be extraditing Republika Srpska
Gen.
Ratko Mladic, who is allegedly located in Serbia.
"He is not a citizen of Serbia and Serbia is in no way a country
providing
asylum for someone internationally wanted," he said.
GOVERNMENT PREPARED TO STAND BAIL FOR MILOSEVIC ASSOCIATES
BELGRADE, Feb 12 (B92) The Serbian Government would provide guarantees
for the release on bail of any close associates of Slobodan Milosevic
who
voluntarily surrender to the Hague Tribunal, Justice Minister Vladan
Batic
said today.
Batic told media that the government had resolved in November last year
to
provide guarantees for any Serbian citizens who surrendered to the
Tribunal.
This would automatically apply to Nikola Sainovic and Vlajko
Stojiljkovic,
he added.
DJELIC: POLITICAL CONDITIONS MUST STOP
LONDON, Feb 12 (Tanjug) - The office of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran
Djindjic is ready to send to The Hague another indictee, but demands an
end
to political blackmail over extradition, Serbian Finance Minister
Bozidar
Djelic has told the BBC.
In reaction to speculations that three of the four other persons
indicted
for crimes in Kosovo and Metohija could be sent to The Hague soon -
Vlajko
Stoiljkovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic and Nikola Sainovic - and that this will
directly determine United States aid for Belgrade this year, which will
be
discussed in Congress on March 31, Djelic said he did not think it was
good
constantly to pressure this government to extradite citizens.
A line must be drawn somewhere. For the sake of the future and politics
and
conscience in Serbia, it should be left to that republic to put on trial
the vast majority of those who are suspected of war crimes, he said.
Djelic said he believed this was important also for the debate which was
under way in local media and for the purpose of truth.
The Hague tribunal should respect that, Djelic said.
DEL PONTE SAYS NO COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY IN INDICTMENT
THE HAGUE, Feb 12 (Tanjug) - The Hague International Criminal Tribunal
for
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte said on
Tuesday
in her first speech at the opening of the trial of former Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic that collective responsibility was not a
subject in the indictment and that the ICTY was not putting on trial any
nation or state.
Del Ponte said there were no personal convictions or ideology in the
background of the crimes of which Milosevic is accused, but merely
attempts
to maintain himself in power and his lust for power.
She said the prosecution was only asking that the court establish and
punish grave violations of international humanitarian laws, and that it
is
left to other experts to analyze the history of the disintegration of
the
former Yugoslavia and the fratricidal clashes that followed.
Assistant chief prosecutor Geoffrey Nice explained details in the
indictments for crimes committed in Kosovo and Metohija in 1998 and 1999
through video films of the time when Milosevic was rising to power.
Presiding Judge Richard May of Great Britain has already set the next
session for Feb 19, when the prosecution will continue presenting its
case.
MILOSEVIC TRIAL IMPORTANT BOTH FOR VICTIMS, YUGOSLAV PEOPLE
BELGRADE, Feb 12 9 (Tanjug) - Council of Europe (CE) parliamentary
assembly
president Peter Schieder assessed Tuesday that the trial of former
Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic is of crucial importance for the victims of
the crimes committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, as well
as
for the people of FR Yugoslavia.
The CE statement, sent to Tanjug, pointed out that without justice
wounds
cannot heal, thus preventing reconciliation and lasting peace from
finally
taking root.
Schieder said that The Hague tribunal is trying individuals, not
peoples,
and that it rejects the notion of collective responsibility for the
crimes
that have been committed.
The trial is also essential for the future of international justice and
it
will have to demonstrate that an international court is able to
administer
justice in an equitable manner, regardless of the political status of
the
accused, or the nationality and the ethnic origin of the victim,
Schieder
said in the statement.
* AFP. 14 February 2002. Milosevic says war crimes proceedings
"political trial"; Milosevic charges West with "ocean of lies."
* AFP. 14 February 2002. Milosevic shows shock pics of Kosovo refugees
attacked by NATO; Milosevic too hopes to show videos during testimony:
laywer.
* BBC. 13 February 2002. TRANSCRIPT: MILOSEVIC ADDRESSES COURT
* AFP. 13 February 2002. Legal challenges raised by Milosevic at war
crimes trial.
* IAC SENDS SOLIDARITY DELEGATION TO OPENING OF "TRIAL" OF PRESIDENT
MILOSEVIC
* News from Jugoslav government sources
===*===
Subject: [ML-YU] Milosevic vs. ocean of NATO lies
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:45:55 -0500
From: Barry Stoller
AFP. 14 February 2002. Milosevic says war crimes proceedings "political
trial"; Milosevic charges West with "ocean of lies."
THE HAGUE -- Slobodan Milosevic told the war crimes court at The Hague
on Thursday in his defence statement that he was the victim of a
"political trial."
As he continued his defence statement, which blamed the West for
concocting an "ocean of lies" in order to carry out the 1999 NATO war on
Yugoslavia, he said: "The whole word knows that this is a political
trial."
He said: "There is not a single element of a fair trial ... there is an
enormous apparatus on one side, a vast media structure on that same
side.
"What's on my side? I only have a public telephone booth in prison.
That's the only thing I have available to face the most terrible kind of
libel against my country, my people and me."
In a confident statement that aimed to speak to world opinion as much as
the international court trying him for genocide, Milosevic said he was
the victim of a "criminal" and "political" trial bent only on vengeance.
He compared Yugoslavia's fight against ethnic Albanian rebels in Kosovo
to the US-led campaign in Afghanistan, arguing that his nation had done
just what the United States had when faced with terrorism.
"You basically have nothing," Milosevic scoffed at the prosecutors, who
argue he is personally responsible for mass murder and crimes against
humanity in the 1990s wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo.
Former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic opened his defense Thursday
by showing the UN war crimes court a video discussing the 1999 massacre
of ethnic Albanians in Racak, which triggered the NATO air war on
Yugoslavia.
The video, some of it taken from German television, showed a commentator
casting doubt on whether the dozens of ethnic Albanians killed were
civilians, and an interview with an observer who said there may have
been separatist fighters of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) among them.
"An important reason for the (NATO) war was the alleged massacre in
Racak. From the begining there were doubts with respect to that
question, doubts which, with the latest research, have become ever more
clear," the commentator said.
"The name of this village is Racak. The Serbs suffered a terrible
massacre here, a massacre which led to the attack by the NATO aviation,"
the commentator said in the video.
He also showed video of the NATO air strikes that began in March 1999,
where Serbs were seen huddled in bunkers, and other commentators saying
that there had been no "humanitarian catastrophe" in Yugoslavia before
those air strikes.
In a mirror image of the meticulous portraits of atrocities spelled out
by prosecutors in the first two days of the trial, Milosevic read aloud
a list of Yugoslav hospitals and schools reduced to rubble by the NATO
bombing.
He ridiculed prosecution arguments -- more than once asking if they
could not "come up with something more intelligent" -- and defiantly
said his people had made a "heroic defence" in the face of the NATO air
campaign.
Milosevic argued that Serb forces who fought Albanian guerrillas in the
province of Kosovo had been fighting an anti-terror war just like that
led by the United States in Afghanistan.
"The Americans go to the other side of the globe to fight terrorism, in
Afghanistan as a case in point, right to the other side of the world,
and that is considered to be logical and normal," Milosevic said.
"Whereas here the struggle against terrorism in one's very own country
is considered to be a crime," he said.
Milosevic on Thursday told his war crimes trial that NATO and the West
had fabricated an "ocean of lies" to back the 1999 war on Yugoslavia.
"This is just an atom of truth in the ocean of lies and the product of
propaganda and the use of global media as a means of war against my
country," Milosevic said after presenting a nearly hour-long video on
the Kosovo war.
The video cast doubt on the January 1999 massacre of ethnic Albanian
civilians in Racak and charged that the West fabricated allegations of a
Serbian plan to ethnically cleanse the province of its Albanian
population.
"This terrible fabrication," Milosevic argued, was used to whip up
public opinion in favor of a war against Yugoslavia.
Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians fled Kosovo to avoid NATO air
bombs in 1999, Milosevic contended.
"Now they wish to negate that fact by saying that they in fact fled from
Serb forces," he said.
"I consider the defense a heroic defense from the aggression launched by
NATO and the NATO pact," he said.
The prosecution charged in the first two days of the trial that
Milosevic was at the centre of a web of loyal local Serb leaders,
parliamentary forces and army commanders who carried out the crimes in
order to forge and ethnically pure "Greater Serbia" purged of all
non-Serbs.
"The events point towards a central personality, the existence of a
controlling human force," prosecutor Geoffrey Nice told the court
Wednesday. "It is a personality the accused seeks to say is not his, but
there is no other," he said.
Milosevic scorned the claim Thursday, saying: "He probably thinks I am
superhuman."
---
Subject: [ML-YU] Milosevic has his own photos to show
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:28:56 -0500
From: Barry Stoller
AFP. 14 February 2002. Milosevic shows shock pics of Kosovo refugees
attacked by NATO; Milosevic too hopes to show videos during testimony:
laywer.
THE HAGUE -- Former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic on Thursday
showed photographs of burnt bodies of what he said were ethnic Albanian
refugees killed by NATO bombs during the 1999 war in Yugoslavia.
Arguing that it was NATO and not Serb forces who were responsible for
the slaughter of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, Milosevic put on show
photographs of bodies of old men, women and children, charred bones and
body parts torn off during the attack and lying in pools of blood.
"These were mostly peasant women, villagers, killed and burned to death
as a result of a bomb," Milosevic said as he presented his defense at
the war crimes trial.
The bombing of the refugee column traveling from Djakovica to Prizen on
April 14, 1999 drew outrage from human rights groups, who also took
offense to NATO's description of the deaths as "collateral damage."
The photographs showed the bodies in fields, burnt corpses lying in
carts pulled by tractors, a head, hand or arm torn off in the attack,
Milosevic said.
The former head of state charged that NATO targeted civilians during its
air war against Yugoslavia.
"They were the priority targets of the evildoers who decided to
undertake this action," he said.
Milosevic will try to show video sequences during his defense Thursday,
to counter the shocking footage of mass graves, starving Bosnian Muslims
and deportations presented at the trial's opening by the prosecution, a
lawyer said.
"Milosevic will try to show video clips to counter the images shown
yesterday by the prosecution, but I don't know if the judges will permit
this," said Zdenko Tomanovic, a Belgrade lawyer helping Milosevic to
mount his case.
During nearly two days of opening statements by the prosecution, the
three-panel judges saw video footage of emaciated Bosnian Muslim men
behind barbed wire fences at a detention camp in northwest Bosnia in
1992.
The court also was shown film, taken by a local doctor, of ethnic
Albanians who had been killed in the Kosovo town of Izbica, as well as
deportations of Kosovars in military convoys.
---
Subject: [ML-YU] Milosevic transcript - full text
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:17:21 -0500
From: Barry Stoller
BBC. 13 February 2002. Transcript: Milosevic addresses court.
[This transcript is taken from a simultaneous translation of Mr
Milosevic's statement to the court, made in Serbian.]
Presiding Judge Richard May: You may sit or stand to address the court
whichever you prefer.
Slobodan Milosevic: Do you stop work this afternoon at four o'clock?
Judge May: We stop at four, so if you'd like to make a start now, we'll
adjourn then and you can go on tomorrow.
Slobodan Milosevic: I don't think there's any sense in me starting and
being interrupted half an hour later. I have spent two days listening to
the speeches made by the prosecution.
Judge May: Are you asking to start tomorrow morning - is that what you
want?
Slobodan Milosevic: You explained to me last time when we were here,
when we attended a status conference here, that I would have the right
to speak and as far as I was able to gather now, you are giving me that
right.
However, I consider that it would be logical for me to begin without
having to be interrupted less than half an hour hence. But I would like
to take advantage of this opportunity nonetheless.
Judge May: Very well, you can address us tomorrow. But what is it you'd
like to add?
Slobodan Milosevic: I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity
before I begin speaking and delivering my speech to say that as you know
several times here I have bought some legal aspects - I won't be
mentioning those in my speech proper but I have received no response or
answer from you.
You know full well that all international and national documents and
rules and regulations determine the fact that a court can be there to
judge only if it has been established on the basis of law and I have
broached the question of the legality of this tribunal. You did not
provide me with a response.
You delved into the question and looked into the aspects of court
authority although the competencies of the court are not the same thing
as the court's legality and I challenged the very legality of this
tribunal because it was not set up on the basis of the law.
The Security Council could not transfer the right that it does not have
to this tribunal and, therefore, this tribunal does not have the
competence to try.
I expect this tribunal, or rather you, to respond to those legal facts
and I had expected as one of the amici curia [literally "friends of the
court" and Mr Milosevic's legal representation], and suggested that you
seek the advice of the International Court of Justice, which you failed
to do.
I consider that this is a question of prime importance. It is of
principled importance, both for international law and for justice in
general and that it will have to be resolved. I think that I have
sufficiently expounded and explained the issue when I sent you a lengthy
text with all the points that set out my arguments and I also did so
orally here.
The second point that I wish to raise and wish to clarify is that at the
status conference that was held here I raised the question of my illegal
arrest and the representative of the tribunal had a part in that.
It took place in Belgrade. It violated the constitution of Serbia and
the constitution of Yugoslavia and the Federal Government tabled its
resignation because of that and criminal law suits have been the result
in Yugoslavia - they've been filed and on the other hand I do know that
every court is duty bound to deal with the habeas corpus question before
the start of trials.
You failed to take that into account nor did you schedule a hearing with
that respect and which rule you were duty bound to do based on the rules
and regulations.
Those questions are regulated by all human rights and political rights
declarations - universal ones and European, American and others - and
you as men of the law are well acquainted with that and through your own
practice as well, you have become acquainted with that because you have
been discussing the question of unlawful arrest in other cases.
So this has been a great omission on your part. You were duty bound to
call a hearing with respect to the unlawful arrest that took place ove
my person and with respect to the fact that I was brought here on the
basis of a crime having been committed. A crime which is not only
treated in the laws of my own country but it is an issue treated in the
laws of all states and is present in all international conventions and
so on and so forth.
Furthermore, I also wish to question [something] which you too did not
wish to resolve and I put forth many arguments to clear up my point. I
said that we cannot speak of a fair trial and an equitable trial here
especially an unbiased stand on the part of the prosecution.
You know that in 1990 the United Nations Congress adopted its own set of
instructions with respect to prosecution and the prosecutor. Those were
general guideline demanding that there must be n prejudice and that
there must be impartiality.
From everything that we have heard here so far, we have become more than
convinced that not only is it partial but your prosecutor has proclaimed
my sentence and judgement and the prosecution has orchestrated a media
campaign that has been waged and organised. It is a parallel trial
through the media which along with this unlawful tribunal are there to
play the role of a parallel lynch process. Which, in advance without any
insight...
Judge May: I'm going to interrupt you. What do you mean by saying that
the prosecutor has proclaimed your sentence and judgement?
Slobodan Milosevic: In public and the previous prosecutor at a meeting
with Albright said - they both said - that they were engaged in the same
business or job and the indictment itself was raised on the basis of the
constructions of the British intelligence service during the war against
Yugoslavia and we know full well that intelligence services only give
out selective information and details - those that they are able to rig
and not those which are not to their advantage and so on and so forth.
There are many arguments that could be raised here but at all events I
should like to indicate to you that you did not discuss these matters
nor did you make a decision of any kind. You did not call upon the
International Court of Justice as to the illegalities of the issue and
you did not schedule a hearing which you were duty bound to do on the
basis of habeas corpus and on the basis of the fact that your
representative took part in the...
Judge May: Mr Milosevic you indicated earlier that you wanted to make
your submissions tomorrow - that's apparently not the case because you
wanted to address us today.
But the matters on which you are choosing to address us are matters upon
which we have already ruled. As you would know, if you'd taken the
trouble to read our decisions. You had the right of appeal - you did not
take it.
The matters, therefore, have all been dealt with and your views about
the tribunal are now completely irrelevant as far as these proceedings
are concerned. All the matters you raised, you've argued before and we
have ruled upon and there is no need for them to be raised again in
these proceedings. We will hear the rest of your arguments and
submissions tomorrow morning.
---
Subject: [ML-YU] Legal challenges raised by Milosevic
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:42:56 -0500
From: Barry Stoller
AFP. 13 February 2002. Legal challenges raised by
Milosevic at war crimes trial.
THE HAGUE -- Herewith some of the legal challenges
raised Wednesday by
Slobodan Milosevic against the UN war crimes
tribunal, which is trying
him for genocide and crimes against humanity:
LEGALITY
Milosevic said the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established in 1993,
had "no competence" to try him and was manifestly illegal.
In a controversial ruling on November 8 last year,
the court itself decided it was competent to hear the
case against Milosevic, who is faced with 66 charges
on three indictments covering events in Bosnia,
Croatia and Kosovo.
Commentators have noted that Milosevic signed the
1995 Dayton accords, ending the Bosnian and
Croatian wars, and that those accords implicitly
recognised the ICTY's legitimacy.
Some experts say the UN Security Council, which
established the court, had no legal right to
establish a judicial body because the UN charter
gives the council no such mandate.
IMPARTIALITY
Milosevic said the court had already decided he was
guilty, and had he not been cut off, would, presumably,
have gone into previous arguments that NATO and the
West were responsible for their own atrocities with
the killing of civilians during the 1999 bombing of
Yugoslavia.
Chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte decided not to
open a formal investigation into the NATO
bombardments, which left scores of civilians
dead and raised accusations of political bias
against the Serbs.
Milosevic's successor, Yugoslav President Vojislav
Kostunica, said that ruling cast a "great shadow"
over the court's credibility.
ARREST
Milosevic said his arrest in Belgrade last June by
Serbian police for extradition to The Hague was
illegal and a violation of the constitutions of
Serbia and Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia's constitutional court had ruled the
extradition was illegal.
Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic sidestepped
the court by invoking a law, ironically implemented
by Milosevic himself, giving Serbia the
right to overrule decisions by the federation if
they interfered with Serbian interests.
In the political row that ensued, Yugoslav Prime
Minister Zoran Zizic and his Montenegrin allies
in the federal government resigned in protest.
---
Subject: Newsletter FREE SLOBO ! - n° 12
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:20:28 +0100 (CET)
From: ICDSM <icdsminfonet@...>
IAC SENDS SOLIDARITY DELEGATION TO OPENING OF
"TRIAL" OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) is set to open a so-called trial of
former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic on Feb.
12 at The Hague, Netherlands. The International Action
Center (IAC), based in the United States, has sent a
delegation to take part in activities showing solidarity with the
defendant and opposing the "trial" as a NATO frame up.
"With this trial," said International Action Center (IAC)
representative Bill Doares from Amsterdam, "Washington
and its NATO allies hopes to pin the guilt for the 10
years of civil war in the Balkans on the Yugoslav leader. The
goal of these big powers is to shift the blame for the war
they fomented onto the victims, the Serbian people and all
the other peoples of Yugoslavia."
The delegation will be participating in meetings and
press conferences denouncing the ICTY in Amsterdam and The
Hague on Feb. 11 and Feb. 12. They will also attend the
trial to hear President Milosevic's opening statement, which is
expected to be a political defense of his people and
their role in the war.
Speaking boldly in his own defense before an ICTY
hearing on Jan. 30, President Milosevic said this to the
officials appointed to judge him:
"With all due respect, the real judges of this trial-not
you who wear the robes-want to bet those who decided to
murder children in my country, who launched NATO's
aggression and dropped 25,000 tons of bombs in 78 days,
murdering mostly elderly people, children and women.
This is the role they would like to play, but they will not
be allowed to be the judges."
"The Yugoslav president is confident that if the people
know the truth, they will rally against the NATO court,"
said Doares. "The truth, for example, that U.S./NATO bombs
and rockets destroyed much of Yugoslav industry in Serbia,
while killing only 14 tanks in Kosovo, where war crimes
were alleged to be taking place."
---
MILOSEVIC TRIAL STARTS
BELGRADE, Feb 13 ( Beta) - The trial of former Yugoslav president
Slobodan
Milosevic for crimes against humanity in Kosovo and Croatia and genocide
and other crimes in Bosnia, began at the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia on Feb. 12
Milosevic will first be prosecuted for crimes in Kosovo. After the
prosecutor's and Milosevic's opening statements, which could last up to
three days, witnesses will be heard.
Milosevic was taken into detention at The Hague on June 26, last year.
The
trial has a historical importance for the victims, the peoples of the
former Yugoslavia, international law and justice.
British prosecutor Geoffrey Nice said that Milosevic had made a
considerable effort to cover his participation in crimes in Bosnia.
LIVE BROADCAST OF MILOSEVIC TRIAL, SVILANOVIC
KIEV, Feb 12 (Tanjug) - The whole trial of former Yugoslav president
Slobodan Milosevic should be broadcast live, Yugoslav Foreign Minister
Goran Svilanovic said during a visit to Kiev, Ukrainian news agency
Interfax said.
Svilanovic added that the trial should be made fully public to the
citizens
of Yugoslavia so that they can assure themselves it is fair.
He said that a television broadcast with a translation was important as
the
only way for most people in Yugoslavia to learn about all the details.
"We will follow the trial very carefully," Svilanovic said and added
that
the Milosevic trial was a political issue for Yugoslavia.
DJINDJIC SAYS OFFICIALS ACCUSED WITH MILOSEVIC MUST BE EXTRADITED
BELGRADE, Feb 13 ( Beta) - Serbian Premier Zoran Djindjic said on Feb.
12
that four former top officials, accused together with Milosevic for war
crimes in Kosovo, must be extradited to the international war crimes
tribunal.
Djindjic told Austrian journalists reporting on Austrian President
Thomas
Klestil's visit, in Belgrade that, "This does not have an alternative."
"I favor cooperation and oppose any risk to our country. Were they
honest
they would have surrendered themselves. If they have nothing to hide
then
this will be revealed," Djindjic was quoted as saying by the Austrian
APA
news service.
Commenting on the start of Slobodan Milosevic's trial, Djindjic
indicated
that the extradition of Serbian President Milan Milutinovic, Nikola
Sainovic, Vlajko Stojiljkovic and Dragoljub Ojdanic "is no problem." "We
have our laws," he said.
Djindjic said a bigger problem would be extraditing Republika Srpska
Gen.
Ratko Mladic, who is allegedly located in Serbia.
"He is not a citizen of Serbia and Serbia is in no way a country
providing
asylum for someone internationally wanted," he said.
GOVERNMENT PREPARED TO STAND BAIL FOR MILOSEVIC ASSOCIATES
BELGRADE, Feb 12 (B92) The Serbian Government would provide guarantees
for the release on bail of any close associates of Slobodan Milosevic
who
voluntarily surrender to the Hague Tribunal, Justice Minister Vladan
Batic
said today.
Batic told media that the government had resolved in November last year
to
provide guarantees for any Serbian citizens who surrendered to the
Tribunal.
This would automatically apply to Nikola Sainovic and Vlajko
Stojiljkovic,
he added.
DJELIC: POLITICAL CONDITIONS MUST STOP
LONDON, Feb 12 (Tanjug) - The office of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran
Djindjic is ready to send to The Hague another indictee, but demands an
end
to political blackmail over extradition, Serbian Finance Minister
Bozidar
Djelic has told the BBC.
In reaction to speculations that three of the four other persons
indicted
for crimes in Kosovo and Metohija could be sent to The Hague soon -
Vlajko
Stoiljkovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic and Nikola Sainovic - and that this will
directly determine United States aid for Belgrade this year, which will
be
discussed in Congress on March 31, Djelic said he did not think it was
good
constantly to pressure this government to extradite citizens.
A line must be drawn somewhere. For the sake of the future and politics
and
conscience in Serbia, it should be left to that republic to put on trial
the vast majority of those who are suspected of war crimes, he said.
Djelic said he believed this was important also for the debate which was
under way in local media and for the purpose of truth.
The Hague tribunal should respect that, Djelic said.
DEL PONTE SAYS NO COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY IN INDICTMENT
THE HAGUE, Feb 12 (Tanjug) - The Hague International Criminal Tribunal
for
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte said on
Tuesday
in her first speech at the opening of the trial of former Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic that collective responsibility was not a
subject in the indictment and that the ICTY was not putting on trial any
nation or state.
Del Ponte said there were no personal convictions or ideology in the
background of the crimes of which Milosevic is accused, but merely
attempts
to maintain himself in power and his lust for power.
She said the prosecution was only asking that the court establish and
punish grave violations of international humanitarian laws, and that it
is
left to other experts to analyze the history of the disintegration of
the
former Yugoslavia and the fratricidal clashes that followed.
Assistant chief prosecutor Geoffrey Nice explained details in the
indictments for crimes committed in Kosovo and Metohija in 1998 and 1999
through video films of the time when Milosevic was rising to power.
Presiding Judge Richard May of Great Britain has already set the next
session for Feb 19, when the prosecution will continue presenting its
case.
MILOSEVIC TRIAL IMPORTANT BOTH FOR VICTIMS, YUGOSLAV PEOPLE
BELGRADE, Feb 12 9 (Tanjug) - Council of Europe (CE) parliamentary
assembly
president Peter Schieder assessed Tuesday that the trial of former
Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic is of crucial importance for the victims of
the crimes committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, as well
as
for the people of FR Yugoslavia.
The CE statement, sent to Tanjug, pointed out that without justice
wounds
cannot heal, thus preventing reconciliation and lasting peace from
finally
taking root.
Schieder said that The Hague tribunal is trying individuals, not
peoples,
and that it rejects the notion of collective responsibility for the
crimes
that have been committed.
The trial is also essential for the future of international justice and
it
will have to demonstrate that an international court is able to
administer
justice in an equitable manner, regardless of the political status of
the
accused, or the nationality and the ethnic origin of the victim,
Schieder
said in the statement.
From: "TV-Stop" <tv-stop@...>
[Le Figaro 13 février 2002]
JUSTICE La comparution de Slobodan Milosevic devant
le Tribunal pénal international pour la Yougoslavie
Une parodie de procès
PAR FRANÇOIS TERRÉ *
Quels qu'aient pu être ses comportements génocides
crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre ,
le procès de Slobodan Milosevic est contraire au
droit pénal international et constitue un précédent
dangereux. Au lieu de le juger sur un territoire
de l'ancienne Yougoslavie, ce qui ne l'aurait pas privé
de son juge naturel, on l'a transféré, moyennant
finances, devant une inadmissible juridiction
d'exception.
Les adversaires des juridictions d'exception,
c'est-à-dire de celles qui sont créées de manière
exceptionnelle on les dit ad hoc , auraient dû
et devraient contester l'existence même du Tribunal
pénal international pour la Yougoslavie (TPIY).
Créé de manière totalement irrégulière par le Conseil
de sécurité de l'ONU, au mépris de la charte des
Nations unies, dénoncé par les représentants de
certains Etats (ex. : le Brésil), ce TPIY, ins titué
en 1993, a reçu pour mission de juger les personnes
présumées responsables de vio la tions graves du
droit humanitaire commises sur le territoire de
l'ex-Yougoslavie depuisS 1991.
Les règles présidant au fonctionnement du TPIY sont
attentatoires aux principes de non-rétroactivité
de la loi pénale et de légalité des délits et des
peines. Curieusement, le Conseil de sécurité a aussi
donné au TPIY une grande latitude pour adopter
«un règlement qui régira la phase préalable à
l'audience, les recours et la recevabilité des
preuves, la protection des victimes et des témoins ».
De ce pouvoir contestable, le TPIY, maître de sa
procédure, a usé et abusé au point de procéder à
une modification de ce règlement à douze reprises
entre février 1994 et juillet 1997.
Le contenu du règlement révèle des atteintes aux
principes les plus élémentaires de la procédure
pénale. Ainsi, sous prétexte de protection des
témoins à charge musulmans (pourquoi pas les autres?),
on a permis à ceux-ci de témoigner sous une cagoule
la voix déformée... (Alexandre del Valle,
Islamisme et Etats-Unis, une alliance contre l'Europe,
p. 263). Maintes dispositions exorbitantes
caractérisent la procédure retenue (régl. art. 50,
53, 60, 66, 69, 70, 75, 79). Ainsi, « dans le cas où
la communication de pièces se trouvant en la possession
du procureur pourrait nuire à de
nouvelles enquêtes ou en cours, le procureur peut
demander à la chambre de première instance
siégeant à huis clos d'être dispensée de l'obligation
de communiquer les pièces de la défense »!
Et, curieusement ou non, « la chambre de première
instance n'exige pas la preuve de ce qui est
de notoriété publique » (art. 89).
Pourtant, en 1999, lors de la passation de ses
pouvoirs, le procureur canadien devant le TPIY avait
déclaré : « La justice internationale a fait plus
de progrès au cours des cinq dernières années que
dans les cinquante précédentes. La culture de
l'impunité des puissants ne fait plus partie du
paysage pour le prochain millénaire. »
Lui succédant, Carla Del Ponte d'affirmer:
« Faire comparaître Milosevic, Karadzic ou Mladic, pour
ne citer qu'eux, est une de mes priorités, ma tâche
principale. Et, s'il faut mettre le paquet, on le
mettra » (interv. Paris-Match, 31 août 1999).
Est-ce là un propos digne d'un procureur ? Toujours
est-il que le paquet, on l'a mis !
La complexité de la situation dans l'ex-Yougoslavie
a empêché, sinon provoqué, les difficultés de
capture des responsables ou présumés tels. D'où le
recours à des démarches souvent indignes:
dissimulation de documents, tromperies et ruses
pour attirer des personnages prêts à coopérer à
l'oeuvre dite de justice (ex. : Slavko Dokmanovic).
Pis: marchandage avec un gouvernement
consistant à promettre, en quelque sorte, une
«rançon» pour la livraison de Milosevic.
Si abominable qu'ait pu être celui-ci, un Etat ne
livre ni ne vend ses nationaux ; le cas échéant, il les
juge lui-même. Le fait qu'il s'agissait d'ailleurs
d'un chef d'Etat renforçait même cette exigence. « Il
est probable que, si la Yougoslavie n'avait pas
été économiquement aux abois... le
gouvernement de Belgrade n'aurait pas cédé aux
injonctions de Washington, qui faisait dépendre
l'octroi d'une aide au transfert de Milosevic »
(Pascal Boniface, Le Figaro, 3 juillet 2001). Une
livraison à laquelle s'opposera en vain la Cour
suprême de Serbie.
Aux gens de loi qui s'accommodent de tout cela,
on sera tenté de dire, comme Voltaire à
Montesquieu défendant la vénalité des charges:
« Il est bien difficile à l'esprit le plus philosophique
de ne pas payer son tribut à l'amour propre. Si
un épicier parlait de législation, il voudrait que tout
le monde achetât de la cannelle et de la muscade. »
* Membre de l'Institut.
---
Subject: Newsletter FREE SLOBO ! - n° 12
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:20:28 +0100 (CET)
From: ICDSM <icdsminfonet@...>
VERBATIM :
LE PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC REPOND AU TPI LE 13 FEVRIER
Les principaux points de la déclaration de Slobodan
Milosevic mercredi devant les « juges » de l'OTAN :
Contre Carla Del Ponte.
«Après tout ce que nous avons entendu ici en deux
jours, nous avons été non seulement convaincus que
cette procédure était partiale, mais aussi que votre
procureur avait déjà prononcé mon jugement et ma
sentence. L'accusation a orchestré une campagne
médiatique. C'est un procès parallèle à travers les
médias qui, aux côtés de cet animal appelé tribunal,
sont ici pour procéder à un lynchage parallèle au
procès. J'ai dit que je ne pourrais pas bénéficier
d'un procès juste et équitable ici.»
Sur la légalité du tribunal de l'OTAN.
«Je conteste la légalité de ce tribunal car il n'a pas
été établi sur le fondement de la loi. Le Conseil de
sécurité ne peut pas transférer à ce tribunal des
droits dont il ne dispose pas. C'est pour cela que ce
tribunal n'a pas la compétence pour me juger (...).
Je vous ai posé une question concernant la légalité de
ce tribunal. J'attends de ce tribunal et de vous en
particulier que vous répondiez à ces questions que je
considère de la première importance pour la justice
internationale et la justice en général.»
Sur son enlèvement.
«J'ai également soulevé la question de l'illégalité de
mon arrestation à laquelle un représentant du tribunal
est mêlé. Cette arrestation a eu lieu à Belgrade et a
violé la constitution de la Yougoslavie et de la
Serbie. Vous n'avez pas tenu compte de cela. (...)
Vous êtes familier des textes internationaux à ce
sujet. Vous avez déjà discuté de la question des
arrestations illégales dans d'autres affaires. C'est
ainsi une grave omission de votre part. Vous étiez
légalement contraints de convoquer une audience
consacrée à la question de l'arrestation illégale qui
a eu lieu sur ma personne et vous ne l'avez pas fait».
LES CRITIQUES DE SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC CONTRE LE TRIBUNAL
LA HAYE (d'après AFP) - Au cours de sa première
intervention depuis le début de son procès, l'ancien
président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic a une nouvelle
fois attaqué, mercredi, la légitimité du Tribunal
pénal international (TPI) de La Haye.
Voici un résumé des principales critiques portées
contre le TPI par M. Milosevic depuis son transfert à
La Haye, en juin, mais également par ses conseils.
- Critiques sur la légitimité.
Selon M. Milosevic, le TPI, créé en 1993 par le
Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU pour juger les crimes de
guerre commis dans l'ex-Yougoslavie, est entaché d'un
vice initial: le Conseil de sécurité n'avait pas la
compétence pour créer un tribunal international. Ce
pouvoir appartient à l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU ou
à une conférence internationale. Le TPI "n'a pas la
compétence pour me juger", a déclaré M. Milosevic
mercredi.
- Critiques sur le fonctionnement du Tribunal.
Les conseils de M. Milosevic jugent contraire au
principe de séparation des pouvoirs qu'un tribunal
puisse fixer lui-même son règlement. Au TPI, on note
qu'"il n'y a pas de parlement mondial", qui pourrait
procéder aux modifications du règlement, et que le
tribunal ne fait qu'appliquer le mandat du Conseil de
sécurité.
- Critiques sur son financement
L'avocat français Jacques Vergès, qui représente les
intérêts de M. Milosevic devant la Cour européenne de
Strasbourg, juge anormal qu'une partie du financement
du TPI (14%) soit assurée non par l'ONU, mais par des
Etats ou des particuliers: "ces donateurs ne sont
évidemment pas des amis de la Serbie. Puis-je accepter
de comparaître devant un tribunal payé en partie par
mes ennemis?". Borislav Milosevic, frère de l'accusé,
a mentionné l'homme d'affaires américain Georges Soros
parmi ces contributeurs.
- Critiques sur l'impartialité du Tribunal
Sur un plan plus politique, la décision du procureur
Carla Del Ponte de ne pas ouvrir d'enquête sur les
dégâts "collatéraux" provoqués par les bombardements
de l'OTAN contre la Serbie, en 1999, a suscité de
vives critiques.
Cette décision jette une "ombre importante" sur la
crédibilité du Tribunal, a estimé le président
Vojislav Kostunica.
LE PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC CONTRE LE TRIBUNAL DE L'OTAN
mercredi 13 février 2002, 17h10
"M. Milosevic vous avez le droit de parler" ou de
"garder le silence". Le juge britannique Richard May
s'adresse à l'ancien président yougoslave.
Il est 15h30 dans une salle située au premier étage du
Tribunal pénal international (TPI) de La Haye.
"Non, je pense que cela n'a pas de sens que je
commence à parler aujourd'hui, pour être interrompu
une demi-heure plus tard", répond M. Milosevic,
allusion à l'heure fixant la fin de l'audience de
mercredi.
Arborant une cravate aux couleurs de la Yougoslavie,
il ajoute qu'il a "passé deux jours à écouter les
présentations de l'accusation".
Mais, l'ancien président yougoslave, qui était resté
silencieux depuis mardi et qui s'est comporté pendant
les audiences comme s'il assistait à un spectacle qui
lui a été imposé de toute évidence contre son gré,
change d'avis.
De manière hautaine, il lance au magistrat
britannique: "Ce tribunal n'a pas la compétence pour
me juger". L'ancien homme fort de Belgrade rappelle au
juge qu'il attend toujours des réponses sur les
questions concernant la légalité du Tribunal qu'il
avait déjà soulevées lors des audiences préalables au
procès.
"La dernière fois, je vous avais posé plusieurs
questions auxquelles je n'ai pas eu de réponse",
enchaîne-t-il. "La première question, c'est la
question de la légalité de ce tribunal à laquelle vous
n'avez pas répondu", poursuit-il, "je m'attends à ce
que vous consultiez la CIJ (Cour internationale de
justice) pour avis, c'est une question d'une extrême
importance. J'ai déjà parlé de l'illégalité de mon
arrestation".
"Vous étiez légalement obligés de convoquer une
audience consacrée à la question de l'arrestation
illégale qui a eu lieu sur ma personne et vous ne
l'avez pas fait. C'est ainsi une grave omission de
votre part", poursuit l'ancien homme fort de Belgrade.
Il accuse ensuite le procureur du TPI, Carla Del
Ponte, d'avoir déjà "proclamé la sentence" à l'avance
et d'orchestrer une campagne médiatique contre lui.
"L'accusation a lancé une campagne médiatique contre
moi", martèle-t-il, "c'est un procès parallèle à
travers les médias".
Slobodan Milosevic boit un verre d'eau. Le juge lève
la séance.
L'ancien président ramasse des feuilles où il a rédigé
des notes pendant les audiences, sort de la salle,
portant un attaché-case volumineux, escorté par deux
policiers.
LE COMBAT DE L'ICDSM - CONFERENCE DE PRESSE
A LA HAYE LE 12 FEVRIER.
REVUE DE PRESSE:
SES AVOCATS DENONCENT UNE «COUR MARTIALE».
«UN PRISONNIER POLITIQUE»
Par Marc SEMO, LIBERATION (Paris), Le mercredi 13
février 2002 La Haye envoyé spécial
« C'est un grand hôtel moderne et un peu triste, à
quelques centaines de mètres à peine du Tribunal pénal
international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie, où descendent
régulièrement avocats et membres des familles des
accusés qui retrouvent dans ses interminables couloirs
ou dans ses bars en sous-sol bruyants et enfumés un
peu de l'atmosphère du pays. Là, depuis hier, se
déroulent toutes les manoeuvres politiques et les
batailles en marge du procès de l'ancien président
yougoslave. Ses avocats-conseils et ses partisans
regroupés dans un Comité international pour la défense
de Slobodan Milosevic (ICDM) où figurent en bonne
place le dramaturge britannique Harold Pinter et
Ramsay Clark, ancien ministre américain de la Justice
démocrate ont lancé hier une première
contre-offensive avec une lettre ouverte adressée aux
chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement.
Cour martiale. «Le président Milosevic est un
prisonnier politique victime d'un procès spectacle
purement politique, organisé par une institution
politique déguisée en tribunal et contrôlée par les
pays qui ont organisé l'agression contre la
Yougoslavie. (...) S'il était condamné par une telle
cour, dont le caractère et la partialité sont
évidents, ce serait la fin du principe d'égalité des
nations qui est à la base du système des Nations
unies», affirme ce texte présenté hier dans une
conférence de presse. «Ce n'est pas une cour
internationale mais une cour martiale», renchérit
l'avocat canadien Christopher Black, vice-président de
l'ICDM, qui pourfend l'illégalité du TPI. (...)
Groupe de juristes. L'ancien président yougoslave a,
lui, refusé de nommer des avocats afin de prendre en
charge lui-même sa défense, mais il se fait
conseiller, payant théoriquement de sa poche un groupe
de juristes qui, selon la formule ironique d'un
militant des droits de l'homme, «font ainsi du recel
de crimes contre l'humanité». Outre Christopher Black
et deux avocats serbes, Me Ognanovic et Me Tomanovic,
le Français Jacques Vergès, jadis avocat du FLN
algérien, du nazi Klaus Barbie ou du terroriste
Carlos, est l'une des figures de proue de ce collège.
«J'approuve l'attitude de Milosevic qui refuse le
tribunal, car rentrer dans les débats d'un tel procès
biaisé signifierait les authentifier», explique
l'avocat français, grand praticien de la «défense de
rupture», manifestement ravi de se retrouver ainsi à
nouveau sous les feux de la rampe. Son anglais
incertain le prive des networks américains, mais il se
rattrape largement avec les télévisions et les radios
françaises... »
[Le Figaro 13 février 2002]
JUSTICE La comparution de Slobodan Milosevic devant
le Tribunal pénal international pour la Yougoslavie
Une parodie de procès
PAR FRANÇOIS TERRÉ *
Quels qu'aient pu être ses comportements génocides
crimes contre l'humanité, crimes de guerre ,
le procès de Slobodan Milosevic est contraire au
droit pénal international et constitue un précédent
dangereux. Au lieu de le juger sur un territoire
de l'ancienne Yougoslavie, ce qui ne l'aurait pas privé
de son juge naturel, on l'a transféré, moyennant
finances, devant une inadmissible juridiction
d'exception.
Les adversaires des juridictions d'exception,
c'est-à-dire de celles qui sont créées de manière
exceptionnelle on les dit ad hoc , auraient dû
et devraient contester l'existence même du Tribunal
pénal international pour la Yougoslavie (TPIY).
Créé de manière totalement irrégulière par le Conseil
de sécurité de l'ONU, au mépris de la charte des
Nations unies, dénoncé par les représentants de
certains Etats (ex. : le Brésil), ce TPIY, ins titué
en 1993, a reçu pour mission de juger les personnes
présumées responsables de vio la tions graves du
droit humanitaire commises sur le territoire de
l'ex-Yougoslavie depuisS 1991.
Les règles présidant au fonctionnement du TPIY sont
attentatoires aux principes de non-rétroactivité
de la loi pénale et de légalité des délits et des
peines. Curieusement, le Conseil de sécurité a aussi
donné au TPIY une grande latitude pour adopter
«un règlement qui régira la phase préalable à
l'audience, les recours et la recevabilité des
preuves, la protection des victimes et des témoins ».
De ce pouvoir contestable, le TPIY, maître de sa
procédure, a usé et abusé au point de procéder à
une modification de ce règlement à douze reprises
entre février 1994 et juillet 1997.
Le contenu du règlement révèle des atteintes aux
principes les plus élémentaires de la procédure
pénale. Ainsi, sous prétexte de protection des
témoins à charge musulmans (pourquoi pas les autres?),
on a permis à ceux-ci de témoigner sous une cagoule
la voix déformée... (Alexandre del Valle,
Islamisme et Etats-Unis, une alliance contre l'Europe,
p. 263). Maintes dispositions exorbitantes
caractérisent la procédure retenue (régl. art. 50,
53, 60, 66, 69, 70, 75, 79). Ainsi, « dans le cas où
la communication de pièces se trouvant en la possession
du procureur pourrait nuire à de
nouvelles enquêtes ou en cours, le procureur peut
demander à la chambre de première instance
siégeant à huis clos d'être dispensée de l'obligation
de communiquer les pièces de la défense »!
Et, curieusement ou non, « la chambre de première
instance n'exige pas la preuve de ce qui est
de notoriété publique » (art. 89).
Pourtant, en 1999, lors de la passation de ses
pouvoirs, le procureur canadien devant le TPIY avait
déclaré : « La justice internationale a fait plus
de progrès au cours des cinq dernières années que
dans les cinquante précédentes. La culture de
l'impunité des puissants ne fait plus partie du
paysage pour le prochain millénaire. »
Lui succédant, Carla Del Ponte d'affirmer:
« Faire comparaître Milosevic, Karadzic ou Mladic, pour
ne citer qu'eux, est une de mes priorités, ma tâche
principale. Et, s'il faut mettre le paquet, on le
mettra » (interv. Paris-Match, 31 août 1999).
Est-ce là un propos digne d'un procureur ? Toujours
est-il que le paquet, on l'a mis !
La complexité de la situation dans l'ex-Yougoslavie
a empêché, sinon provoqué, les difficultés de
capture des responsables ou présumés tels. D'où le
recours à des démarches souvent indignes:
dissimulation de documents, tromperies et ruses
pour attirer des personnages prêts à coopérer à
l'oeuvre dite de justice (ex. : Slavko Dokmanovic).
Pis: marchandage avec un gouvernement
consistant à promettre, en quelque sorte, une
«rançon» pour la livraison de Milosevic.
Si abominable qu'ait pu être celui-ci, un Etat ne
livre ni ne vend ses nationaux ; le cas échéant, il les
juge lui-même. Le fait qu'il s'agissait d'ailleurs
d'un chef d'Etat renforçait même cette exigence. « Il
est probable que, si la Yougoslavie n'avait pas
été économiquement aux abois... le
gouvernement de Belgrade n'aurait pas cédé aux
injonctions de Washington, qui faisait dépendre
l'octroi d'une aide au transfert de Milosevic »
(Pascal Boniface, Le Figaro, 3 juillet 2001). Une
livraison à laquelle s'opposera en vain la Cour
suprême de Serbie.
Aux gens de loi qui s'accommodent de tout cela,
on sera tenté de dire, comme Voltaire à
Montesquieu défendant la vénalité des charges:
« Il est bien difficile à l'esprit le plus philosophique
de ne pas payer son tribut à l'amour propre. Si
un épicier parlait de législation, il voudrait que tout
le monde achetât de la cannelle et de la muscade. »
* Membre de l'Institut.
---
Subject: Newsletter FREE SLOBO ! - n° 12
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:20:28 +0100 (CET)
From: ICDSM <icdsminfonet@...>
VERBATIM :
LE PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC REPOND AU TPI LE 13 FEVRIER
Les principaux points de la déclaration de Slobodan
Milosevic mercredi devant les « juges » de l'OTAN :
Contre Carla Del Ponte.
«Après tout ce que nous avons entendu ici en deux
jours, nous avons été non seulement convaincus que
cette procédure était partiale, mais aussi que votre
procureur avait déjà prononcé mon jugement et ma
sentence. L'accusation a orchestré une campagne
médiatique. C'est un procès parallèle à travers les
médias qui, aux côtés de cet animal appelé tribunal,
sont ici pour procéder à un lynchage parallèle au
procès. J'ai dit que je ne pourrais pas bénéficier
d'un procès juste et équitable ici.»
Sur la légalité du tribunal de l'OTAN.
«Je conteste la légalité de ce tribunal car il n'a pas
été établi sur le fondement de la loi. Le Conseil de
sécurité ne peut pas transférer à ce tribunal des
droits dont il ne dispose pas. C'est pour cela que ce
tribunal n'a pas la compétence pour me juger (...).
Je vous ai posé une question concernant la légalité de
ce tribunal. J'attends de ce tribunal et de vous en
particulier que vous répondiez à ces questions que je
considère de la première importance pour la justice
internationale et la justice en général.»
Sur son enlèvement.
«J'ai également soulevé la question de l'illégalité de
mon arrestation à laquelle un représentant du tribunal
est mêlé. Cette arrestation a eu lieu à Belgrade et a
violé la constitution de la Yougoslavie et de la
Serbie. Vous n'avez pas tenu compte de cela. (...)
Vous êtes familier des textes internationaux à ce
sujet. Vous avez déjà discuté de la question des
arrestations illégales dans d'autres affaires. C'est
ainsi une grave omission de votre part. Vous étiez
légalement contraints de convoquer une audience
consacrée à la question de l'arrestation illégale qui
a eu lieu sur ma personne et vous ne l'avez pas fait».
LES CRITIQUES DE SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC CONTRE LE TRIBUNAL
LA HAYE (d'après AFP) - Au cours de sa première
intervention depuis le début de son procès, l'ancien
président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic a une nouvelle
fois attaqué, mercredi, la légitimité du Tribunal
pénal international (TPI) de La Haye.
Voici un résumé des principales critiques portées
contre le TPI par M. Milosevic depuis son transfert à
La Haye, en juin, mais également par ses conseils.
- Critiques sur la légitimité.
Selon M. Milosevic, le TPI, créé en 1993 par le
Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU pour juger les crimes de
guerre commis dans l'ex-Yougoslavie, est entaché d'un
vice initial: le Conseil de sécurité n'avait pas la
compétence pour créer un tribunal international. Ce
pouvoir appartient à l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU ou
à une conférence internationale. Le TPI "n'a pas la
compétence pour me juger", a déclaré M. Milosevic
mercredi.
- Critiques sur le fonctionnement du Tribunal.
Les conseils de M. Milosevic jugent contraire au
principe de séparation des pouvoirs qu'un tribunal
puisse fixer lui-même son règlement. Au TPI, on note
qu'"il n'y a pas de parlement mondial", qui pourrait
procéder aux modifications du règlement, et que le
tribunal ne fait qu'appliquer le mandat du Conseil de
sécurité.
- Critiques sur son financement
L'avocat français Jacques Vergès, qui représente les
intérêts de M. Milosevic devant la Cour européenne de
Strasbourg, juge anormal qu'une partie du financement
du TPI (14%) soit assurée non par l'ONU, mais par des
Etats ou des particuliers: "ces donateurs ne sont
évidemment pas des amis de la Serbie. Puis-je accepter
de comparaître devant un tribunal payé en partie par
mes ennemis?". Borislav Milosevic, frère de l'accusé,
a mentionné l'homme d'affaires américain Georges Soros
parmi ces contributeurs.
- Critiques sur l'impartialité du Tribunal
Sur un plan plus politique, la décision du procureur
Carla Del Ponte de ne pas ouvrir d'enquête sur les
dégâts "collatéraux" provoqués par les bombardements
de l'OTAN contre la Serbie, en 1999, a suscité de
vives critiques.
Cette décision jette une "ombre importante" sur la
crédibilité du Tribunal, a estimé le président
Vojislav Kostunica.
LE PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC CONTRE LE TRIBUNAL DE L'OTAN
mercredi 13 février 2002, 17h10
"M. Milosevic vous avez le droit de parler" ou de
"garder le silence". Le juge britannique Richard May
s'adresse à l'ancien président yougoslave.
Il est 15h30 dans une salle située au premier étage du
Tribunal pénal international (TPI) de La Haye.
"Non, je pense que cela n'a pas de sens que je
commence à parler aujourd'hui, pour être interrompu
une demi-heure plus tard", répond M. Milosevic,
allusion à l'heure fixant la fin de l'audience de
mercredi.
Arborant une cravate aux couleurs de la Yougoslavie,
il ajoute qu'il a "passé deux jours à écouter les
présentations de l'accusation".
Mais, l'ancien président yougoslave, qui était resté
silencieux depuis mardi et qui s'est comporté pendant
les audiences comme s'il assistait à un spectacle qui
lui a été imposé de toute évidence contre son gré,
change d'avis.
De manière hautaine, il lance au magistrat
britannique: "Ce tribunal n'a pas la compétence pour
me juger". L'ancien homme fort de Belgrade rappelle au
juge qu'il attend toujours des réponses sur les
questions concernant la légalité du Tribunal qu'il
avait déjà soulevées lors des audiences préalables au
procès.
"La dernière fois, je vous avais posé plusieurs
questions auxquelles je n'ai pas eu de réponse",
enchaîne-t-il. "La première question, c'est la
question de la légalité de ce tribunal à laquelle vous
n'avez pas répondu", poursuit-il, "je m'attends à ce
que vous consultiez la CIJ (Cour internationale de
justice) pour avis, c'est une question d'une extrême
importance. J'ai déjà parlé de l'illégalité de mon
arrestation".
"Vous étiez légalement obligés de convoquer une
audience consacrée à la question de l'arrestation
illégale qui a eu lieu sur ma personne et vous ne
l'avez pas fait. C'est ainsi une grave omission de
votre part", poursuit l'ancien homme fort de Belgrade.
Il accuse ensuite le procureur du TPI, Carla Del
Ponte, d'avoir déjà "proclamé la sentence" à l'avance
et d'orchestrer une campagne médiatique contre lui.
"L'accusation a lancé une campagne médiatique contre
moi", martèle-t-il, "c'est un procès parallèle à
travers les médias".
Slobodan Milosevic boit un verre d'eau. Le juge lève
la séance.
L'ancien président ramasse des feuilles où il a rédigé
des notes pendant les audiences, sort de la salle,
portant un attaché-case volumineux, escorté par deux
policiers.
LE COMBAT DE L'ICDSM - CONFERENCE DE PRESSE
A LA HAYE LE 12 FEVRIER.
REVUE DE PRESSE:
SES AVOCATS DENONCENT UNE «COUR MARTIALE».
«UN PRISONNIER POLITIQUE»
Par Marc SEMO, LIBERATION (Paris), Le mercredi 13
février 2002 La Haye envoyé spécial
« C'est un grand hôtel moderne et un peu triste, à
quelques centaines de mètres à peine du Tribunal pénal
international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie, où descendent
régulièrement avocats et membres des familles des
accusés qui retrouvent dans ses interminables couloirs
ou dans ses bars en sous-sol bruyants et enfumés un
peu de l'atmosphère du pays. Là, depuis hier, se
déroulent toutes les manoeuvres politiques et les
batailles en marge du procès de l'ancien président
yougoslave. Ses avocats-conseils et ses partisans
regroupés dans un Comité international pour la défense
de Slobodan Milosevic (ICDM) où figurent en bonne
place le dramaturge britannique Harold Pinter et
Ramsay Clark, ancien ministre américain de la Justice
démocrate ont lancé hier une première
contre-offensive avec une lettre ouverte adressée aux
chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement.
Cour martiale. «Le président Milosevic est un
prisonnier politique victime d'un procès spectacle
purement politique, organisé par une institution
politique déguisée en tribunal et contrôlée par les
pays qui ont organisé l'agression contre la
Yougoslavie. (...) S'il était condamné par une telle
cour, dont le caractère et la partialité sont
évidents, ce serait la fin du principe d'égalité des
nations qui est à la base du système des Nations
unies», affirme ce texte présenté hier dans une
conférence de presse. «Ce n'est pas une cour
internationale mais une cour martiale», renchérit
l'avocat canadien Christopher Black, vice-président de
l'ICDM, qui pourfend l'illégalité du TPI. (...)
Groupe de juristes. L'ancien président yougoslave a,
lui, refusé de nommer des avocats afin de prendre en
charge lui-même sa défense, mais il se fait
conseiller, payant théoriquement de sa poche un groupe
de juristes qui, selon la formule ironique d'un
militant des droits de l'homme, «font ainsi du recel
de crimes contre l'humanité». Outre Christopher Black
et deux avocats serbes, Me Ognanovic et Me Tomanovic,
le Français Jacques Vergès, jadis avocat du FLN
algérien, du nazi Klaus Barbie ou du terroriste
Carlos, est l'une des figures de proue de ce collège.
«J'approuve l'attitude de Milosevic qui refuse le
tribunal, car rentrer dans les débats d'un tel procès
biaisé signifierait les authentifier», explique
l'avocat français, grand praticien de la «défense de
rupture», manifestement ravi de se retrouver ainsi à
nouveau sous les feux de la rampe. Son anglais
incertain le prive des networks américains, mais il se
rattrape largement avec les télévisions et les radios
françaises... »
IVAN BONFANTI: MILOSEVIC E' COLPEVOLE PERCHE' HA PERSO
Slobodan Milosevic e' <<il presidente che condusse la Jugoslavia prima e
la Serbia poi alla catastrofe della sconfitta>>, e per questo e'
colpevole di tutto. Lo scrive il giornalista Bonfanti su "Liberazione"
del 13/02/2001, nell'ambito di un pezzo letterariamente ardito, ricco di
accenti fantasy e lombrosiani ("cinico statista", "con una mano
incendiava gli animi della Serbia contadina e con l'altra si divideva la
Bosnia insieme al 'nemico' Franjo Tudjman, l'autoproclamato erede degli
ustascia di Ante Pavelic, i più volenterosi carnefici di Hitler" - anche
per Pavelic la colpa e' di Milosevic?!). Bonfanti va compreso: ingrato
e' il mestiere del giornalista che per guadagnarsi il pane deve
dimostrare tesi precostituite, a qualsiasi costo.
(I. Slavo)
Slobodan Milosevic e' <<il presidente che condusse la Jugoslavia prima e
la Serbia poi alla catastrofe della sconfitta>>, e per questo e'
colpevole di tutto. Lo scrive il giornalista Bonfanti su "Liberazione"
del 13/02/2001, nell'ambito di un pezzo letterariamente ardito, ricco di
accenti fantasy e lombrosiani ("cinico statista", "con una mano
incendiava gli animi della Serbia contadina e con l'altra si divideva la
Bosnia insieme al 'nemico' Franjo Tudjman, l'autoproclamato erede degli
ustascia di Ante Pavelic, i più volenterosi carnefici di Hitler" - anche
per Pavelic la colpa e' di Milosevic?!). Bonfanti va compreso: ingrato
e' il mestiere del giornalista che per guadagnarsi il pane deve
dimostrare tesi precostituite, a qualsiasi costo.
(I. Slavo)
LA NATO e l'ONU SPONSOR DEI TERRORISTI IN KOSOVO
di Jared Israel e Rick Rozoff
[16 Settembre 2001]
Traduzione inviataci da Alessandro Lattanzio
Parecchi hanno iniziato a visitare il sito di
Emperor's Clothes A causa dei nostri articoli
sull'11 Settembre.
Vi consigliamo di leggere il seguente testo sul
Kosovo. Sin da quando la NATO e l'ONU sono in
Kosovo, esso si ritrova sotto il vero dominio degli
USA. L'atteggiamento statunitense verso i terroristi
chiarisce la reale connessione dell'Establishment
USA con il terrore. E vedendo il Kosovo noi troviamo
che lo stesso atteggiamento di disonestà e
disinformazione di cui siamo stati testimoni l'11
Settembre.
Per capire come NATO e ONU operano in Kosovo,
considerate il dispaccio seguente. È stato redatti
dalla KFOR il24 maggio 2001. (KFOR significa Kosovo
Force. KFOR è la forza d'occupazione NATO in Kosovo.
COMKFOR è il Comando della forza d'occupazione NATO
in Kosovo.)
Ecco il dispaccio KFOR:
"KFOR News Update
Pristina, 24 Maggio 2001 del Magg. Axel-Bernd
Jandesek, portavoce KFOR "Più di 450 membri
dell'UCPMB si sono arresi"
"Dalla fine della politica "soft" del COMKFOR verso
gli estremisti dell'UCPMB più di 450 ex-estremisti
hanno tratto vantaggio da tale politica. Queste
persone hanno volontariamente gettato le armi e
consegnati in numerosi checkpoints della KFOR. La
KFOR ha interrogato e rilasciato tutti i membri
dell'UCPMB che non erano sospettati di aver commesso
gravi atti delittuosi."
[KFOR Online 24 Maggio 2001 (1)]
UCPMB è la sigla usata dai terroristi etnici
albanesi quando attaccavano la Serbia vera e
propria.
Qualche osservazione:
1) Nota che il titolo di questa notizia parla di 450
membri dell'UCPMB che si arrendono, ma il testo
suggerirebbe tutti eccetto pochi che sono stati
rilasciati.
2) Il dispaccio definisce i membri dell'UCPMB
'eatremisti'. Ciò suggerisce che tale gente fosse su
posizioni politiche estreme. Ma, infatti, queste
persone sono terroristi organizzati in unità
militari, che attuavano pesanti attacchi militari in
Serbia. Seminavano mine. Terrorizzavano gli albanesi
che "non-cooperativi". Rapivano, torturavano e
uccidevano poliziotti e cittadini serbi.
Combattevano contro i soldati jugoslavi. Da sempre
illegali, parecchi, tra l'altro, sono assassini. Su
che basi la KFOR conclude che molti di tali
terroristi non hanno commesso gravi crimini?
3) una volta che i terroristi sono stati rilasciati,
perché non dovrebbero ritornare nella loro
precedente "occupazioni" - minare, terrorizzare,
rapire e uccidere in Serbia?
Per comprendere il significato di queste domande,
considerate gli obblighi ufficiali della KFOR e
dell'organizzazione sorella, l'UNMIK (United Nations
Mission in Kosovo). Queste responsabilità, sono
basate sugli accordi, grazie ai quali KFOR e UNMIK
hanno occupato il Kosovo. Questo accordo è la
risoluzione del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU
N°1244, o UNSCR 1244 (o anche UN 1244 in breve)
Il seguente è uno dei principi supremi:
"Riaffermando l'obbligo di tutti gli stati membri
verso la sovranità e l'integrità della Repubblica
Federale di Jugoslavia e degli altri stati della
regione, così come stabilito nel trattato di
Helsinki"
Nota: il trattati di Helsinki può essere letto su:
http://www.hri.org/docs/Helsinki75.html
Riguardo le responsabilità specifiche:
"[Il Consiglio di Sicurezza] decide che le
responsabilità dell'autorità della sicurezza
internazionale (cioè KFOR e UNMIK), che deve essere
dispiegata e attuata in Kosovo, dovrà includere:
"Reprimere rinnovate ostilità, mantenere e, quando
necessario, rinforzare il cessate-il-fuoco...;
smilitarizzare l'UCK e altri gruppi armati di
albanesi, come richiesto dal paragrafo 15 seguente;
stabilire un ambiente sicuro in cui i rifugiati e i
profughi possano ritornare a casa in sicurezza,
l'autorità civile internazionale può operare, e una
amministrazione transitoria può essere attuata, e
gli aiuti umanitari possono essere consegnati;"
-KFOR Online sulla risoluzione del Consiglio di
Sicurezza dell'ONU N°1244 (2)
per liberare 450 terroristi che hanno commesso dei
delitti in Serbia (parte della Repubblica Federale
di Jugoslavia) la KFOR disinvoltamente contraddice
il suo mandato principale:
"Riaffermare la sovranità e l'integrità territoriale
della Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavi..."
e che:
La smilitarizzazione dell'UCK e altri gruppi armati
di albanesi... (e) stabilendo un ambiente sicuro...
Secondo l'ex-presidente degli USA William Clinton,
queste richieste sono state largamente soddisfatte
nel giugno 2000. In una lettera al Congresso,
Clinton dichiara:
"L'UCK ha accettato, il 21 giugno 1999, a cessare il
fuoco, di ritirarsi dalle zone di scontro in Kosovo,
e a consegnare le armi. Il 20 settembre 1999 il
comandante della KFOR Tenente-Generale Sir Mike
Jackson ha accettato la certificazione dell'UCK di
aver completato i processo di smilitarizzazione
secondo gli accordi del 21 Giugno. L'UNMIK, inoltre,
ha stabilito un servizio d'emergenza civile noto
come Kosovo Protection Corps che è inteso a fornire
un'assistenza civica alle emergenze e ad altre forme
di assistenza umanitaria.
...Il personale della KFOR provvede alla sicurezza
nelle città, villaggi, e nella campagna." - Lettera
del Presidente Clinton al Congresso USA sulle Forze
in Kosovo. 16 Giugno 2000 (3) LA BUGIA DI CLINTON
N°1: "IL 20 SETTMBRE, 1999 L'UCK HA COMPLETATO LA
SUA SMILITARIZZAZIONE"
Riguardo a ciò il Russian Press Digest ha
commentato:
"Il capo della missione ONU in Kosovo, Bernard
Kouchner, ha annunciato che i rappresentanti
dell'UCK hanno consegnato 10.000 armi di ogni tipo,
ciò ha permesso alla missione di parlare di
completamento del processo di disarmo.
'Siamo soddisfatti dal fatto che l'UCK abbia dato
10.000 armi da fuoco, anche se noi sappiamo che
hanno altre 100.000 armi da fuoco' ironizzava uno
dei membri della missione ONU in Kosovo."
-Russian Press Digest, 21 Settembre 1999 (4)
Articoli in altri giornali confermano che la
supposta smilitarizzazione dell'UCK è stato un
imbroglio. Ciò nonnè una sorpresa, a seguito di tale
smilitarizzazione, l'UCK ha continuato la sua azione
gangsteristica e terroristica. Tutto ciò è
documentato nell'articolo 'Campi di Concentramento e
Gangster e Terrorismo in Kosovo.' (4a)
LA BUGIA DI CLINTON N°2: "L'UNMIK ha costituito il
Kosovo Protection Corps [che é]...civile e
umanitario"
Un articolo de La Stampa, è vivamente descritto il
modo in cui è stato costituito il civico e
umanitario Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC).
"Poco dopo le mezzanotte, un comandante locale
dell'UCK consegnava, alle truppe italiane della
KFOR, il primo carico di armi. La consegna era stata
preceduta da un a breve cerimonia...nel corso della
quale un gruppo di guerriglieri dell'UCK,
simbolicamente hanno consegnato sei mitragliatrici a
una squadra di soldati italiani, ricevendo in cambio
le nuove uniformi del 'Kosovo Protection Corps' il
gruppo di protezione civile nella quale è stato
trasformato l'UCK. Al comandante della base, Gezim
Ostremi è stato chiesto se le sue forze fanno ancora
parte dell'UCK, ha risposto, dopo aver guardato
l'orologio, 'E' mezzanotte, ora siamo il Kosovo
Protection Corps.'"
--La Stampa, 20 Settembre 1999 (5)
Non era una eccezione, è la regola. KFOR e UNMIK
hanno semplicemente cambiato l'UCK (terrorista) nel
Kosovo Protection Corps (civile e umanitario).
I criminali di guerra dell'UCK, non saranno mai
incarcerati. Non saranno obbligati a seguire corsi
di rieducazione, come le persone arrestate per guida
in stato d'ebbrezza. Invece sono stati premiati con
l'uniforme nuova del KPC, un titolo rispettabile,
status dell'ONU (!) e pagato (!).
E hanno un leader: Agem Ceku. Per visionarne il
curriculum vitae vedere: 'UN Appoints an Alleged War
Criminal in Kosovo.' (6)
In breve, fin a quando è stato nominato al vertice
del KPC, Agem Ceku ha guidato l'UCK. E prima ancora
è stato un ufficiale croato, implicato in crimini di
guerra contro migliaia di civili nella Krajna della
Jugoslavia.(7)
KFOR e UNMIK possono trasformare dei terroristi che
riempiono il KPC in bravi cittadini? Considerate che
il caso di Gezim Ostremi, il comandante dell'UCK già
menzionato nell'articolo de La Stampa.
Durante l'estate del 2001, due anni dopo la
formazione del KPC, qualche giornale occidentale
rivelava che Ostremi guidava gli assalti
terroristici in Macedonia! The Irish Times
commentava:
"Prima dell'inizio della guerra in Macedonia, il
comandante Gezim Ostremi era pagato dall'ONU per
aiutarla a formare il Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC),
[allora] nominato suo chief-of-staff."
-The Irish Times, 5 Luglio 2001 (8)
Secondo The Irish Times, il ruolo di Ostremi quale
leader terrorista fu uno shock per i vertici
dell'ONU e della NATO in Kosovo:
"Il coordinamento della comunità internazionale nei
Balcani è stato gettato nella confusione (dalla
rivelazione)."
-The Irish Times, 5 Luglio 2001 (8)
Ahh, che confusione!
Sembra che sempre i leaders del nostro nuovo impero
sono implicati in qualche atto disdicevole che
suggerisce non solo ipocrisia ma comportamento
criminale, essi e i loro media accusano la
confusione, l'inefficienza, la perplessità e la
mancanza di preparazione, tutto è un errore umano.
"Questa vasta burocrazia pasticciona, non complotta
atti diabolici, deve solo fare attenzione", questa è
l'idea.
Apparentemente qualcuno ha effettuato uno studio che
rivela come la gente ordinaria può causare disguidi
ufficiali tanto così a lungo, quanto la parte
colpevole è libero e veloce nel "confessare"
stupidità o incompetenza )piuttosto che intenzioni
diaboliche...)
Quando abbiamo domandato nessun aeroplano decollasse
dalla Andrews Air Force Base, che è proprio accanto
Washington, DC, a intercettare l'American Airlines
Flight 77 durante il più di 55 minuti di volo verso
il Pentagono, il segretario della difesa Donald
Rumsfeld offriva la seguente "confessione":
"RUMSFELD: Tony, è accaduto poiché gli USA non
credevano di dover stare in massima allerta ogni
minuto del giorno."
-Fox News Sunday, (09:00) 16 Settembre 2001 (9)
e quando gli aerei degli USA bombardano, in
Afghanistan, i depositi della Croce Rossa,
chiaramente marcati e geograficamente isolati, per
la seconda volta, tutti i media parlano di errori.
(Attualmente il secondo bombardamento è stato
condotto in due ondate o più da parte di parecchi
tipi di bombardamento).
Qui vi sono parecchi esempi di notizie:
* "Grave errore, venerdì, un deposito della Croce
Rossa è stato accidentalmente bombardato ancora un
avolta." (The Lexington Herald Leader, 30
Ottobre 2001)
* "...per due volte colpito accidentalmente un
deposito della Croce Rossa" (The Herald (Glasgow),
30 Ottobre 2001)
* "...un secondo attacco errato su un deposito della
Croce Rossa Cross" (USA TODAY, 30 Ottobre 2001).
Emperor's Clothes intervistò esponenti della Croce
Rossa in Svizzera, riguardo gli attacchi. Basato su
ciò che questi esponenti ci hanno detto, è
semplicemente impossibile credere che i militari USA
hanno bombardato dei depositi per errore. (10)
Ritornando su Ostremi, il Chief-of-staff Kosovo
Protection Corp (KPC), come può essere una sorpresa,
per KFOR e UNMIK, la sua attività di terrorista?
Secondo The Irish Times,
"la carenza di supervisione (del KPC), significa che
le settimane precedenti la nomina a comandante da
parte dell'ONU, Ostremi aveva lasciato il comando
dei ribelli in Macedonia, come qualcuno che si
prendeva delle ferie."
-The Irish Times, 5 July 2001 (8)
Ahh, la carenza di supervisione, il cugino della
confusione e dell'azione dei burocrati pasticcioni.
Nota che non un solo burocrate è stato arrestato per
negligenza criminale, che ha permesso al
Chief-of-Staff del KPC, una organizzazione ufficiale
dell'ONU, di condurre un'invasione terrorista di uno
stato sovrano. Tutto ciò perché "abbiamo commesso
degli errori".
Comunque. Non era solo Ostremi che ONU e KFOR si
sono lasciati sfuggire dalla carenza di
supervisione.
"Centinaia di riservisti del KPC sono stati
richiamati, a Marzo, dal loro comandante albanese,
Agim Ceku,. Scomparvero dai campi di addestramento
dell'UCK, per riemergere (come terroristi)in
Macedonia."
-London Times, 10 Giugno 2001 (11)
L'intera struttura dell'UCK è stata attivata nella
forma dei riservisti del KPC, per combattere in
Macedonia.
Vi sorprenderete sul come i riservisti del KPC sono
capaci di commettere atti terroristici nel
territorio poco famigliare della Macedonian. Non si
sarebbero persi? No problem.
"Imbarazzante per la NATO, i riservisti del KPC [che
attaccano la Macedonia!] hanno utilizzato le mappe
della NATO del Kosovo Protection Corps."
-London Times, 10 Giugno 2001 (11)
Abbiamo commentato ciò in 'Ci dispiace Virginia ma
loro sono truppe della NATO, non ribelli':
[ripreso da 'Sorry Virginia']
"Non è affascinante come il London Times impiega il
termine "imbarazzante", come se la NATO abbia
mancato di etichetta?
Vedete, potrebbe essere "imbarazzante" se ordinaste
il vino sbagliato per accompagnare il vostro squalo
alla griglia con datteri? Oppure sarebbe
"imbarazzante" se portaste un'auto rubata nel garage
del massacro di san Valentino?
"Da quando la NATO ili ha tracciati e l'UCK li usa
per una invasione, è ragionevole presumere che
queste mappe dettagliate, includenti strade, la
localizzazione di infrastrutture e dati topografici
come colline, ecc.
"La Macedonia è uno stato sovrano. Non è sotto il
controllo della NATO o dell'ONU. Il Kosovo
Protection Corps non ha nessuna valida ragione per
mettere piede nel territorio Macedone.
"Il KPC non è ufficialmente una strutture militare.
"Mettete tutto questo insieme, per quale scopo la
NATO fornisce al KPC le mappe militari della
Macedonia? Se non per uno scopo ovvio: attaccarla!"
[Fine estratto da 'Sorry Virginia']
lo si può leggere su:
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/mac/times.htm
Per le prova che i terroristi del KPC usino armi
fornite dalla NATO, per attaccare la Macedonia, e
che sono guidati da "consiglieri" degli USA, vedi
l'articolo sulla Macedonia su:
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/mac/list-m.htm
LA BUGIA DI CLINTON N°3: '...il personale della KFOR
garantisce la sicurezza nelle città, villaggi e in
campagna.'
Ciò conforta. Ma Emperor's Clothes ha pubblicate
delle interviste con testimoni che riportano
l'esatto contrario: KFOR e UNMIK sono responsabili
per il regime di terrore che regna da quando
controllano il Kosovo. Per esempio:
* KFOR ha aperto i confini con l'Albania,
permettendo ai gangsters dell'UCK di passare
liberamente tra il Kosovo e le loro basi nel nord
dell'Albania. (12)
* KFOR guarda mentre la gente della parte sbagliata
viene terrorizzata e cacciata di casa. (13)
* I serbi che rimangono in Kosovo sono forzati in
ghetti stile campo di concentramento, diretti dalla
KFOR, e terrorizzati dall'UCK. (14)
* I serbi che restano in Kosovo vivono nel terrore
continuo. Parlando la lingua sbagliata, e quindi
apparendo essere dei serbi, possono essere uccisi.
(14a) Perfino stare alla finestra può essere mortale
se sei un serbo in uno dei nuovi ghetti del Kosovo.
(14)
UNMIK e KFOR sono totalmente consapevoli del
terrorismo monumentale praticato dal Kosovo
Protection Corps, creatura dell'ONU. L'ONU ha
perfino preparato un rapporto speciale per il
segretario generale Kofi Annan che documenta il
violento razzismo e gangsterismo del KPC. (15) Ma
certamente l'UNMIK e KFOR non hanno bisogno di un
rapporto speciale. Questo management da grande
potenza e l'organizzazione militare con i loro
ridondanti servizi segreti, sono perfettamente
capaci di vedere cosa accade davanti ai loro occhi.
Considerate il caso seguente.
16 Febbraio 2001:
"...[una] esplosione distrugge un autobus che
trasporta più di 50 serbi che tornavano in Kosovo
dopo aver visitato i loro parenti rifugiati in
Serbia. [Gli attaccanti] uccidono 11 civili serbi,
incluso un bambino di due anni."
-The Daily Telegraph (Londra), 28 Marzo 2001 (16)
Quattro sospetti vengono arrestati, ma " l'identità
degli uomini arrestati si dimostrano assai
imbarazzanti per i governi occidentali." (The Daily
Telegraph
(Londra), 28 Marzo 2001) (16)
Perché 'imbarazzanti'?
Non è 'imbarazzante' una strana parola da usare per
un crimine?
Imbarazzante poiché:
"Erano tutti membri del Kosovo Protection Corps,
l'organizzazione di difesa civile filo-occidentale
che deriva dall'UCK quando venne smilitarizzato nel
1999. Alcuni membri dell'UCK sono stati addestrati
dalle SAS."
...
"Legami tra il KPC e le organizzazioni criminali e
la violenza politica, in Kosovo, sono un segreto di
pulcinella. Il KPC è stato coinvolto nell'assassinio
di 11 serbi - un incidente che è stato condannato
dal mondo intero - avvenne in un momento assai
critico per la Nato e l'ONU nel Kosovo."
-The Daily Telegraph (Londra), 28 Marzo 2001 (16)
Nota che quando il Presidente Clinton dichiarava il
Kosovo Protection Corps fosse una vittoria
dell'UNMIK, scriveva:
"L'UNMIK dopo aver istituito un servizio di
emergenza civile noto come
Kosovo Protection Corps."
Ma nel suo commento blandamente critico il Daily
Telegraph dichiarava che il KPC:
"che deriva dall'UCK quando venne smilitarizzato nel
1999."
Così, perfino nella critica, i media occidentali
tiravano i loro pugni. La smilitarizzazione è
accettata come un fatto in un articolo che dimostra
che ciò è una menzogna! E il KPC è presentato come
se fosse spuntato dal suolo, come un seme piantato e
innaffiato dall'UNMIK e dalla KFOR.
(1/2, continua)
di Jared Israel e Rick Rozoff
[16 Settembre 2001]
Traduzione inviataci da Alessandro Lattanzio
Parecchi hanno iniziato a visitare il sito di
Emperor's Clothes A causa dei nostri articoli
sull'11 Settembre.
Vi consigliamo di leggere il seguente testo sul
Kosovo. Sin da quando la NATO e l'ONU sono in
Kosovo, esso si ritrova sotto il vero dominio degli
USA. L'atteggiamento statunitense verso i terroristi
chiarisce la reale connessione dell'Establishment
USA con il terrore. E vedendo il Kosovo noi troviamo
che lo stesso atteggiamento di disonestà e
disinformazione di cui siamo stati testimoni l'11
Settembre.
Per capire come NATO e ONU operano in Kosovo,
considerate il dispaccio seguente. È stato redatti
dalla KFOR il24 maggio 2001. (KFOR significa Kosovo
Force. KFOR è la forza d'occupazione NATO in Kosovo.
COMKFOR è il Comando della forza d'occupazione NATO
in Kosovo.)
Ecco il dispaccio KFOR:
"KFOR News Update
Pristina, 24 Maggio 2001 del Magg. Axel-Bernd
Jandesek, portavoce KFOR "Più di 450 membri
dell'UCPMB si sono arresi"
"Dalla fine della politica "soft" del COMKFOR verso
gli estremisti dell'UCPMB più di 450 ex-estremisti
hanno tratto vantaggio da tale politica. Queste
persone hanno volontariamente gettato le armi e
consegnati in numerosi checkpoints della KFOR. La
KFOR ha interrogato e rilasciato tutti i membri
dell'UCPMB che non erano sospettati di aver commesso
gravi atti delittuosi."
[KFOR Online 24 Maggio 2001 (1)]
UCPMB è la sigla usata dai terroristi etnici
albanesi quando attaccavano la Serbia vera e
propria.
Qualche osservazione:
1) Nota che il titolo di questa notizia parla di 450
membri dell'UCPMB che si arrendono, ma il testo
suggerirebbe tutti eccetto pochi che sono stati
rilasciati.
2) Il dispaccio definisce i membri dell'UCPMB
'eatremisti'. Ciò suggerisce che tale gente fosse su
posizioni politiche estreme. Ma, infatti, queste
persone sono terroristi organizzati in unità
militari, che attuavano pesanti attacchi militari in
Serbia. Seminavano mine. Terrorizzavano gli albanesi
che "non-cooperativi". Rapivano, torturavano e
uccidevano poliziotti e cittadini serbi.
Combattevano contro i soldati jugoslavi. Da sempre
illegali, parecchi, tra l'altro, sono assassini. Su
che basi la KFOR conclude che molti di tali
terroristi non hanno commesso gravi crimini?
3) una volta che i terroristi sono stati rilasciati,
perché non dovrebbero ritornare nella loro
precedente "occupazioni" - minare, terrorizzare,
rapire e uccidere in Serbia?
Per comprendere il significato di queste domande,
considerate gli obblighi ufficiali della KFOR e
dell'organizzazione sorella, l'UNMIK (United Nations
Mission in Kosovo). Queste responsabilità, sono
basate sugli accordi, grazie ai quali KFOR e UNMIK
hanno occupato il Kosovo. Questo accordo è la
risoluzione del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU
N°1244, o UNSCR 1244 (o anche UN 1244 in breve)
Il seguente è uno dei principi supremi:
"Riaffermando l'obbligo di tutti gli stati membri
verso la sovranità e l'integrità della Repubblica
Federale di Jugoslavia e degli altri stati della
regione, così come stabilito nel trattato di
Helsinki"
Nota: il trattati di Helsinki può essere letto su:
http://www.hri.org/docs/Helsinki75.html
Riguardo le responsabilità specifiche:
"[Il Consiglio di Sicurezza] decide che le
responsabilità dell'autorità della sicurezza
internazionale (cioè KFOR e UNMIK), che deve essere
dispiegata e attuata in Kosovo, dovrà includere:
"Reprimere rinnovate ostilità, mantenere e, quando
necessario, rinforzare il cessate-il-fuoco...;
smilitarizzare l'UCK e altri gruppi armati di
albanesi, come richiesto dal paragrafo 15 seguente;
stabilire un ambiente sicuro in cui i rifugiati e i
profughi possano ritornare a casa in sicurezza,
l'autorità civile internazionale può operare, e una
amministrazione transitoria può essere attuata, e
gli aiuti umanitari possono essere consegnati;"
-KFOR Online sulla risoluzione del Consiglio di
Sicurezza dell'ONU N°1244 (2)
per liberare 450 terroristi che hanno commesso dei
delitti in Serbia (parte della Repubblica Federale
di Jugoslavia) la KFOR disinvoltamente contraddice
il suo mandato principale:
"Riaffermare la sovranità e l'integrità territoriale
della Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavi..."
e che:
La smilitarizzazione dell'UCK e altri gruppi armati
di albanesi... (e) stabilendo un ambiente sicuro...
Secondo l'ex-presidente degli USA William Clinton,
queste richieste sono state largamente soddisfatte
nel giugno 2000. In una lettera al Congresso,
Clinton dichiara:
"L'UCK ha accettato, il 21 giugno 1999, a cessare il
fuoco, di ritirarsi dalle zone di scontro in Kosovo,
e a consegnare le armi. Il 20 settembre 1999 il
comandante della KFOR Tenente-Generale Sir Mike
Jackson ha accettato la certificazione dell'UCK di
aver completato i processo di smilitarizzazione
secondo gli accordi del 21 Giugno. L'UNMIK, inoltre,
ha stabilito un servizio d'emergenza civile noto
come Kosovo Protection Corps che è inteso a fornire
un'assistenza civica alle emergenze e ad altre forme
di assistenza umanitaria.
...Il personale della KFOR provvede alla sicurezza
nelle città, villaggi, e nella campagna." - Lettera
del Presidente Clinton al Congresso USA sulle Forze
in Kosovo. 16 Giugno 2000 (3) LA BUGIA DI CLINTON
N°1: "IL 20 SETTMBRE, 1999 L'UCK HA COMPLETATO LA
SUA SMILITARIZZAZIONE"
Riguardo a ciò il Russian Press Digest ha
commentato:
"Il capo della missione ONU in Kosovo, Bernard
Kouchner, ha annunciato che i rappresentanti
dell'UCK hanno consegnato 10.000 armi di ogni tipo,
ciò ha permesso alla missione di parlare di
completamento del processo di disarmo.
'Siamo soddisfatti dal fatto che l'UCK abbia dato
10.000 armi da fuoco, anche se noi sappiamo che
hanno altre 100.000 armi da fuoco' ironizzava uno
dei membri della missione ONU in Kosovo."
-Russian Press Digest, 21 Settembre 1999 (4)
Articoli in altri giornali confermano che la
supposta smilitarizzazione dell'UCK è stato un
imbroglio. Ciò nonnè una sorpresa, a seguito di tale
smilitarizzazione, l'UCK ha continuato la sua azione
gangsteristica e terroristica. Tutto ciò è
documentato nell'articolo 'Campi di Concentramento e
Gangster e Terrorismo in Kosovo.' (4a)
LA BUGIA DI CLINTON N°2: "L'UNMIK ha costituito il
Kosovo Protection Corps [che é]...civile e
umanitario"
Un articolo de La Stampa, è vivamente descritto il
modo in cui è stato costituito il civico e
umanitario Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC).
"Poco dopo le mezzanotte, un comandante locale
dell'UCK consegnava, alle truppe italiane della
KFOR, il primo carico di armi. La consegna era stata
preceduta da un a breve cerimonia...nel corso della
quale un gruppo di guerriglieri dell'UCK,
simbolicamente hanno consegnato sei mitragliatrici a
una squadra di soldati italiani, ricevendo in cambio
le nuove uniformi del 'Kosovo Protection Corps' il
gruppo di protezione civile nella quale è stato
trasformato l'UCK. Al comandante della base, Gezim
Ostremi è stato chiesto se le sue forze fanno ancora
parte dell'UCK, ha risposto, dopo aver guardato
l'orologio, 'E' mezzanotte, ora siamo il Kosovo
Protection Corps.'"
--La Stampa, 20 Settembre 1999 (5)
Non era una eccezione, è la regola. KFOR e UNMIK
hanno semplicemente cambiato l'UCK (terrorista) nel
Kosovo Protection Corps (civile e umanitario).
I criminali di guerra dell'UCK, non saranno mai
incarcerati. Non saranno obbligati a seguire corsi
di rieducazione, come le persone arrestate per guida
in stato d'ebbrezza. Invece sono stati premiati con
l'uniforme nuova del KPC, un titolo rispettabile,
status dell'ONU (!) e pagato (!).
E hanno un leader: Agem Ceku. Per visionarne il
curriculum vitae vedere: 'UN Appoints an Alleged War
Criminal in Kosovo.' (6)
In breve, fin a quando è stato nominato al vertice
del KPC, Agem Ceku ha guidato l'UCK. E prima ancora
è stato un ufficiale croato, implicato in crimini di
guerra contro migliaia di civili nella Krajna della
Jugoslavia.(7)
KFOR e UNMIK possono trasformare dei terroristi che
riempiono il KPC in bravi cittadini? Considerate che
il caso di Gezim Ostremi, il comandante dell'UCK già
menzionato nell'articolo de La Stampa.
Durante l'estate del 2001, due anni dopo la
formazione del KPC, qualche giornale occidentale
rivelava che Ostremi guidava gli assalti
terroristici in Macedonia! The Irish Times
commentava:
"Prima dell'inizio della guerra in Macedonia, il
comandante Gezim Ostremi era pagato dall'ONU per
aiutarla a formare il Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC),
[allora] nominato suo chief-of-staff."
-The Irish Times, 5 Luglio 2001 (8)
Secondo The Irish Times, il ruolo di Ostremi quale
leader terrorista fu uno shock per i vertici
dell'ONU e della NATO in Kosovo:
"Il coordinamento della comunità internazionale nei
Balcani è stato gettato nella confusione (dalla
rivelazione)."
-The Irish Times, 5 Luglio 2001 (8)
Ahh, che confusione!
Sembra che sempre i leaders del nostro nuovo impero
sono implicati in qualche atto disdicevole che
suggerisce non solo ipocrisia ma comportamento
criminale, essi e i loro media accusano la
confusione, l'inefficienza, la perplessità e la
mancanza di preparazione, tutto è un errore umano.
"Questa vasta burocrazia pasticciona, non complotta
atti diabolici, deve solo fare attenzione", questa è
l'idea.
Apparentemente qualcuno ha effettuato uno studio che
rivela come la gente ordinaria può causare disguidi
ufficiali tanto così a lungo, quanto la parte
colpevole è libero e veloce nel "confessare"
stupidità o incompetenza )piuttosto che intenzioni
diaboliche...)
Quando abbiamo domandato nessun aeroplano decollasse
dalla Andrews Air Force Base, che è proprio accanto
Washington, DC, a intercettare l'American Airlines
Flight 77 durante il più di 55 minuti di volo verso
il Pentagono, il segretario della difesa Donald
Rumsfeld offriva la seguente "confessione":
"RUMSFELD: Tony, è accaduto poiché gli USA non
credevano di dover stare in massima allerta ogni
minuto del giorno."
-Fox News Sunday, (09:00) 16 Settembre 2001 (9)
e quando gli aerei degli USA bombardano, in
Afghanistan, i depositi della Croce Rossa,
chiaramente marcati e geograficamente isolati, per
la seconda volta, tutti i media parlano di errori.
(Attualmente il secondo bombardamento è stato
condotto in due ondate o più da parte di parecchi
tipi di bombardamento).
Qui vi sono parecchi esempi di notizie:
* "Grave errore, venerdì, un deposito della Croce
Rossa è stato accidentalmente bombardato ancora un
avolta." (The Lexington Herald Leader, 30
Ottobre 2001)
* "...per due volte colpito accidentalmente un
deposito della Croce Rossa" (The Herald (Glasgow),
30 Ottobre 2001)
* "...un secondo attacco errato su un deposito della
Croce Rossa Cross" (USA TODAY, 30 Ottobre 2001).
Emperor's Clothes intervistò esponenti della Croce
Rossa in Svizzera, riguardo gli attacchi. Basato su
ciò che questi esponenti ci hanno detto, è
semplicemente impossibile credere che i militari USA
hanno bombardato dei depositi per errore. (10)
Ritornando su Ostremi, il Chief-of-staff Kosovo
Protection Corp (KPC), come può essere una sorpresa,
per KFOR e UNMIK, la sua attività di terrorista?
Secondo The Irish Times,
"la carenza di supervisione (del KPC), significa che
le settimane precedenti la nomina a comandante da
parte dell'ONU, Ostremi aveva lasciato il comando
dei ribelli in Macedonia, come qualcuno che si
prendeva delle ferie."
-The Irish Times, 5 July 2001 (8)
Ahh, la carenza di supervisione, il cugino della
confusione e dell'azione dei burocrati pasticcioni.
Nota che non un solo burocrate è stato arrestato per
negligenza criminale, che ha permesso al
Chief-of-Staff del KPC, una organizzazione ufficiale
dell'ONU, di condurre un'invasione terrorista di uno
stato sovrano. Tutto ciò perché "abbiamo commesso
degli errori".
Comunque. Non era solo Ostremi che ONU e KFOR si
sono lasciati sfuggire dalla carenza di
supervisione.
"Centinaia di riservisti del KPC sono stati
richiamati, a Marzo, dal loro comandante albanese,
Agim Ceku,. Scomparvero dai campi di addestramento
dell'UCK, per riemergere (come terroristi)in
Macedonia."
-London Times, 10 Giugno 2001 (11)
L'intera struttura dell'UCK è stata attivata nella
forma dei riservisti del KPC, per combattere in
Macedonia.
Vi sorprenderete sul come i riservisti del KPC sono
capaci di commettere atti terroristici nel
territorio poco famigliare della Macedonian. Non si
sarebbero persi? No problem.
"Imbarazzante per la NATO, i riservisti del KPC [che
attaccano la Macedonia!] hanno utilizzato le mappe
della NATO del Kosovo Protection Corps."
-London Times, 10 Giugno 2001 (11)
Abbiamo commentato ciò in 'Ci dispiace Virginia ma
loro sono truppe della NATO, non ribelli':
[ripreso da 'Sorry Virginia']
"Non è affascinante come il London Times impiega il
termine "imbarazzante", come se la NATO abbia
mancato di etichetta?
Vedete, potrebbe essere "imbarazzante" se ordinaste
il vino sbagliato per accompagnare il vostro squalo
alla griglia con datteri? Oppure sarebbe
"imbarazzante" se portaste un'auto rubata nel garage
del massacro di san Valentino?
"Da quando la NATO ili ha tracciati e l'UCK li usa
per una invasione, è ragionevole presumere che
queste mappe dettagliate, includenti strade, la
localizzazione di infrastrutture e dati topografici
come colline, ecc.
"La Macedonia è uno stato sovrano. Non è sotto il
controllo della NATO o dell'ONU. Il Kosovo
Protection Corps non ha nessuna valida ragione per
mettere piede nel territorio Macedone.
"Il KPC non è ufficialmente una strutture militare.
"Mettete tutto questo insieme, per quale scopo la
NATO fornisce al KPC le mappe militari della
Macedonia? Se non per uno scopo ovvio: attaccarla!"
[Fine estratto da 'Sorry Virginia']
lo si può leggere su:
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/mac/times.htm
Per le prova che i terroristi del KPC usino armi
fornite dalla NATO, per attaccare la Macedonia, e
che sono guidati da "consiglieri" degli USA, vedi
l'articolo sulla Macedonia su:
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/mac/list-m.htm
LA BUGIA DI CLINTON N°3: '...il personale della KFOR
garantisce la sicurezza nelle città, villaggi e in
campagna.'
Ciò conforta. Ma Emperor's Clothes ha pubblicate
delle interviste con testimoni che riportano
l'esatto contrario: KFOR e UNMIK sono responsabili
per il regime di terrore che regna da quando
controllano il Kosovo. Per esempio:
* KFOR ha aperto i confini con l'Albania,
permettendo ai gangsters dell'UCK di passare
liberamente tra il Kosovo e le loro basi nel nord
dell'Albania. (12)
* KFOR guarda mentre la gente della parte sbagliata
viene terrorizzata e cacciata di casa. (13)
* I serbi che rimangono in Kosovo sono forzati in
ghetti stile campo di concentramento, diretti dalla
KFOR, e terrorizzati dall'UCK. (14)
* I serbi che restano in Kosovo vivono nel terrore
continuo. Parlando la lingua sbagliata, e quindi
apparendo essere dei serbi, possono essere uccisi.
(14a) Perfino stare alla finestra può essere mortale
se sei un serbo in uno dei nuovi ghetti del Kosovo.
(14)
UNMIK e KFOR sono totalmente consapevoli del
terrorismo monumentale praticato dal Kosovo
Protection Corps, creatura dell'ONU. L'ONU ha
perfino preparato un rapporto speciale per il
segretario generale Kofi Annan che documenta il
violento razzismo e gangsterismo del KPC. (15) Ma
certamente l'UNMIK e KFOR non hanno bisogno di un
rapporto speciale. Questo management da grande
potenza e l'organizzazione militare con i loro
ridondanti servizi segreti, sono perfettamente
capaci di vedere cosa accade davanti ai loro occhi.
Considerate il caso seguente.
16 Febbraio 2001:
"...[una] esplosione distrugge un autobus che
trasporta più di 50 serbi che tornavano in Kosovo
dopo aver visitato i loro parenti rifugiati in
Serbia. [Gli attaccanti] uccidono 11 civili serbi,
incluso un bambino di due anni."
-The Daily Telegraph (Londra), 28 Marzo 2001 (16)
Quattro sospetti vengono arrestati, ma " l'identità
degli uomini arrestati si dimostrano assai
imbarazzanti per i governi occidentali." (The Daily
Telegraph
(Londra), 28 Marzo 2001) (16)
Perché 'imbarazzanti'?
Non è 'imbarazzante' una strana parola da usare per
un crimine?
Imbarazzante poiché:
"Erano tutti membri del Kosovo Protection Corps,
l'organizzazione di difesa civile filo-occidentale
che deriva dall'UCK quando venne smilitarizzato nel
1999. Alcuni membri dell'UCK sono stati addestrati
dalle SAS."
...
"Legami tra il KPC e le organizzazioni criminali e
la violenza politica, in Kosovo, sono un segreto di
pulcinella. Il KPC è stato coinvolto nell'assassinio
di 11 serbi - un incidente che è stato condannato
dal mondo intero - avvenne in un momento assai
critico per la Nato e l'ONU nel Kosovo."
-The Daily Telegraph (Londra), 28 Marzo 2001 (16)
Nota che quando il Presidente Clinton dichiarava il
Kosovo Protection Corps fosse una vittoria
dell'UNMIK, scriveva:
"L'UNMIK dopo aver istituito un servizio di
emergenza civile noto come
Kosovo Protection Corps."
Ma nel suo commento blandamente critico il Daily
Telegraph dichiarava che il KPC:
"che deriva dall'UCK quando venne smilitarizzato nel
1999."
Così, perfino nella critica, i media occidentali
tiravano i loro pugni. La smilitarizzazione è
accettata come un fatto in un articolo che dimostra
che ciò è una menzogna! E il KPC è presentato come
se fosse spuntato dal suolo, come un seme piantato e
innaffiato dall'UNMIK e dalla KFOR.
(1/2, continua)
