http://www.sps.org.yu/index-ne.htm

---

http://www.sps.org.yu/aktuelno/2000/okt/30-1.html

SAOPŠTENJE SOCIJALISTIÈKE
PARTIJE SRBIJE POVODOM
PODNOŠENJA MOLBE ZA PRIJEM SRJ
U ÈLANSTVO UJEDINJENIH NACIJA

Savezna Republika Jugoslavija nikada nije
iskljuèena iz Ujedinjenih nacija i to nije
sporno nizakoga na Svetu, pa ni za organe
i Sekretarijat Ujedinjenih nacija. Prema
tome, nema osnova ni za podnošenje
molbe za prijem u svetsku organizaciju.

Saveznoj Republici Jugoslaviji je
svojevremeno uskraæeno da uèestvuje u
radu pojedinih organa Ujedinjenih nacija.
Otuda može biti reèi samo o zahtevu za
ukidanje takve ogranièene zabrane na
èemu je Socijalistièka partija Srbije uvek
insistirala.

Podnošenje molbe za prijem u èlanstvo
Ujedinjenih nacija predstavlja kršenje
Ustava SRJ i odluka Savezne skupštine
kojima su izabrani narodni predstavnici
Srbije i Crne Gore utvrdili da SR
Jugoslavija nastavlja èlanstvo u
Ujedinjenim nacijama i drugim
meðunarodnim organizacijama. Ovo je
prihvatila i priznala veæina èlanica
svetske organizacije nastavljajuæi
normalne diplomatske odnose i važnost
meðunarodnih sporazuma od kojih neki
potièu iz prošlog stoleæa.

Podnošenje molbe ovih dana za prijem u
Ujedinjene nacije znaèi povlaðivanje
stranim silama i interesima koji potcenjuju
korene i zasluge naše države i naroda za
Evropu i Svet, koji tvrde da je Jugoslavija
poslednja novostvorena država i da je bez
znaèaja to što su Srbija i Crna Gora
najstarije države na Balkanu. Takav potez
i stav mogu imati nesagledive posledice
po vitalne nacionalne i državne interese
naše zemlje.

DICHIARAZIONE DEL PARTITO SOCIALISTA DELLA SERBIA
IN RELAZIONE ALLA PRESENTAZIONE DELLA RICHIESTA DI
AMMISSIONE DELLA RFJ ALLE NAZIONI UNITE

La RF di Jugoslavia non e' stata mai esclusa dalle
Nazioni Unite e questo fatto non e' controverso per
nessuno al mondo, e quindi nemmeno per gli organismi
e per il Segretariato delle Nazioni Unite. Percio'
non c'e' nessuna ragione di presentare la richiesta
di ammissione alla organizzazione mondiale.
La RF di Jugoslavia e' stata a suo tempo sospesa
dalla partecipazione ai lavori di alcuni organi delle
Nazioni Unite. Percio' si puo' parlare solamente di
richiedere la fine di queste limitate proibizioni,
cosa sulla quale il Partito Socialista della Serbia
ha sempre insistito.
La presentazione della richiesta di ammissione alle
Nazioni Unite rappresenta una infrazione della
Costituzione della RFJ e delle decisioni della
Assemblea Federale con le quali i deputati
popolari eletti della Serbia e del Montenegro hanno
attestato che la RFJ prosegue nella sua associazione
alle Nazioni Unite ed alle altre organizzazioni
internazionali. Questo e' stato approvato e riconosciuto
dalla maggioranza dei membri della organizzazione
mondiale con la prosecuzione delle normali
relazioni diplomatiche e con la incessata validita'
degli accordi internazionali, alcuni dei quali
sono stati stipulati nel secolo scorso. In questi
giorni, la presentazione della richiesta di
ammissione alle Nazioni Unite rappresenta una
concessione alle forze ed agli interessi stranieri
che sviliscono le radici ed i meriti del nostro
Stato e del nostro popolo dinanzi all'Europa ed al
mondo, come se la Jugoslavia fosse l'ultimo dei
nuovi Stati ad essere creati e come se fosse senza
importanza il fatto che la Serbia ed il Montenegro
sono gli Stati piu' antichi dei Balcani.
Questa iniziativa e questa attitudine possono
avere conseguenze inimmaginabili per gli interessi
vitali nazionali e statali del nostro paese.

Belgrado, 8/11/2000

http://www.sps.org.yu/aktuelno/2000/nov/08-1.html

8.11.2000. godine, Beograd

LIST "NEDELJNI TELEGRAF"

Gospodin Momèilo ?orgoviæ, direktor i gl.i
odg.urednik



U skladu sa Zakonom o informisanju
zahtevam da u narednom broju Vašeg lista
objavite sledeæi demanti:

Sve što ste objavili u "Nedeljnom
telegrafu", u broju od 8.11.2000. godine, iz
pera novinara Dejana LJutiæa, a što se
odnosi na mene, predstavlja notornu laž.
Jedino je istina da, kao i mnogi drugi, na
Kopaoniku posedujem plac od 4,3 ara koji
sam, pošto nemam sopstvenih finansijskih
sredstava za realizaciju prava na njemu,
ustupila na korišæenje treæem, pravnom
licu.


Gorica Gajeviæ

---

Questo e' il bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").

Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid=91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Sito WEB del Coordinamento:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita:
la tua agenda sul web - per te e per i tuoi amici
Organizza on line i tuoi appuntamenti .
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.ecircle.it/ad204567/www.ecircle.it

Il giornale radio di ieri, oggi e domani

1. Buongiorno, apriamo con la prima notizia. Questa mattina è stata
dichiarata la secessione della Lombardia e del Veneto dalla Repubblica
italiana. Il leader del movimento secessionista ha dichiarato “Meglio
essere gli ultimi in Europa che i primi in Italia”.
Le cancellerie europee si sono riunite per decidere la propria
posizione. Ma la Germania non intende aspettare le indecisioni dei
partner comunitari ed ha deciso di riconoscere unilateralmente le due
repubbliche secessioniste. Già negli anni scorsi i contatti tra i
leader tedeschi e quelli della Lombardia e del Veneto erano stati
frequenti. La Germania si è già impegnata per 180 milioni di dollari in
investimenti nelle due repubbliche secessioniste.
L’Unione Europea in un documento inviato al segretario dell’ONU ha
chiesto che Lombardia e Veneto ottengano un seggio alle Nazioni Unite
mentre la Repubblica italiana dovrà essere sospesa da ogni
organizzazione internazionale.
I governi europei e gli Stati Uniti hanno altresì deciso l’embargo
unilaterale per tutti i prodotti da e verso la Repubblica Italiana.

2. Buonasera, il nostro corrispondente da Bolzano, ci informa che la
provincia dell’Alto Adige ha dichiarato oggi la sua indipendenza dal
governo di Roma. La cancelleria austriaca ha già riconosciuto la
secessione della repubblica tirolese dall’Italia.
Gli osservatori dell’Organizzazione per la Sicurezza e la Cooperazione
Europea, in un loro rapporto riservato che giungerà a breve sul tavolo
del Segretario delle Nazioni Unite, denunciano i ripetuti massacri e lo
stato di oppressione degli italiani sulla popolazione altoatesina.
La comunità internazionale ha mandato un chiaro messaggio al governo di
Roma o fermate i massacri in Alto Adige e ritirate le truppe a sud del
Po oppure la risposta delle democrazie occidentali sarà durissima.

3. Buonasera, apriamo il giornale radio con le notizie degli attacchi
aerei della NATO diventati operativi dopo il fallimento dei negoziati
dovuto all’intransigenza del governo di Roma.
Sono stati bombardate Roma, Firenze e Napoli. I ponti sul Tevere e
sull’Arno, gli stabilimenti Fiat di Cassino e Termoli sono stati colpiti
in quanto obiettivi strategici. Da alcune ore stanno bruciando gli
stabilimenti petrolchimici di Gela e Sicuracusa Al momento pare che le
centrali dell’Enel di Civitavecchia e Terni siano state distrutte dai
bombardamenti chirurgici. Due pulman di pellegrini che tornavano dal
Giubileo sono stati colpiti dai missili lanciati da un aereo della NATO.
Il comando NATO ha parlato di spiacevoli effetti collaterali.

4. Buongiorno, ad anno dai bombardamenti si riscalda il clima per le
prossime elezioni presidenziali e politiche nella repubblica italiana.
Ieri sera il Dipartimento di Stato americano le cancellerie dell’Unione
Europea hanno mandato un chiaro messaggio alla popolazione italiana: se
voterete per l’attuale presidente Inciampi, l’Italia verrà sottoposta a
embargo totale. Nel documento è precisato che i prodotti energetici
dall’estero potranno arrivare esclusivamente nelle città governate
dall’opposizione.
La VI flotta statuitense ha inviato una portaerei nel Mar Tirreno mentre
esercitazioni militari congiunte tra forze armate della Lombardia, del
Veneto e della NATO sono in corso nell’oltrepò pavese.
Il New York Times e le Monde rivelano che il Congresso USA e la
Commissione Europea hanno stanziato rispettivamente 80 e 90 milioni di
dollari per la campagna elettorale dell’opposizione guidata dal suo
leader Bernasconi.

5. Buonasera, ancora teso il clima alla vigilia delle elezioni. I nostri
corrispondenti riportano la notizia che nelle regioni amministrate dai
partiti dell’opposizione non verranno allestiti i seggi elettorali.
I sostenitori dell’attuale governo si stanno organizzando per allestire
dei seggi di fortuna nei negozi o addirittura in case private.
Gli osservatori internazionali rilevano che nonostante tutto ciò in
queste regioni la situazione è tranquilla e tutto si svolgerà
regolarmente mentre è più preoccupante nelle altre città dove esiste il
pericolo dei brogli da parte dei sostenitori dell’attuale presidente
Inciampi.

6. Buonasera per il giornale radio. Sono le ore 20.00. Tra due ore si
chiuderanno i seggi ed inizierà lo spoglio delle schede per le elezioni
politiche e presidenziali nella Repubblica Italiana, ma il leader
dell’opposizione Bernasconi ancora prima delle chiusura dei seggi ha già
dichiarato di aver vinto queste elezioni. Ha convocato già da ora i
suoi sostenitori in Piazza Montecitorio per impedire che i brogli
producano un risultato diverso da quello previsto e già annunciato in
tutte le capitali europee.

7. Buongiorno, lo scrutinio delle schede elettorali si è concluso questa
notte e i risultati non sembrano poter assegnare la vittoria al primo
turno a nessuno dei due candidati. Si andrà dunque al ballottaggio.
Si registra però una dichiarazione rilasciata dal leader
dell’opposizione nella conferenza stampa appena conclusa, secondo cui il
risultato è chiaro e dimostra che è lui ad aver vinto e che non c’è
bisogno di andare al ballottaggio.
Intorno alle ore 15.00 i sostenitori di Bernasconi sono riusciti ad
entrare in massa dentro Montecitorio vincendo la resistenza del cordone
di carabinieri posti a presidio del Parlamento. I corrispondenti della
CNN affermano che alcuni carabinieri hanno cominciato a fraternizzare
con i manifestanti.
Il dipartimento di Stato americano e la Commissione Europea riconoscono
il risultato dichiarato dal leader dell’opposizione Bernasconi e
affermano che l’attuale presidente Inciampi deve dare immediatamente le
dimissioni.
In un documento approvato al vertice europeo in corso a Parigi, i
ministri degli esteri dell’Unione Europea hanno dichiarato che nella
Repubblica Italiana è tornata la democrazia.

8. Buongiorno per l’appuntamento del giornale radio. Il nuovo corso
democratico nella Repubblica italiana comincia già a prendere le prime
iniziative. L’ex leader dell’opposizione e attuale presidente ha
invitato i Savoia a rientrare in Italia. Il paese ha bisogno di
riconciliazione nazionale ha dichiarato alla stampa.
Ieri si erano riuniti gli economisti fino a pochi giorni fa costretti
all’opposizione ed oggi nella nuova maggioranza di governo. Dalle
indiscrezioni trapelate, i consiglieri economici della nuova presidenza
affermano la necessità di una terapia d’urto per riportare l’Italia
dentro la comunità internazionale e il mercato mondiale.
E’ stata annunciata la vendita della Fiat alla Renault. Il piano
d’impresa prevede la riduzione degli organici di almeno 23.000
dipendenti.
E’ stata approvata la legge che consente l’apertura totale agli
investimenti esteri, mentre in accordo con il Fondo Monetario
Internazionale è stata decisa la privatizzazione degli ospizi, degli
argini e dei ponti sul Tevere e delle scuole materne con meno di 800
bambini.
E’ stato inoltre affidato alla banca d’affari Goldman Sachs l’incarico
di trovare acquirenti per la gestione del Colosseo e del Foro Romano.
Per gli scavi di Ostia Antica si è già fatta sotta una cordata
internazionale guidata dalla banca d’affari Lehman Brothers in cui ha un
peso rilevante il finanziere benefattore George Soros.


9. Buonasera per il giornale radio. Oggi sono passati dieci anni dalla
svolta democratica della Repubblica Italiana avvenuta dopo anni di
guerra e di isolamento da parte della comunità internazionale.
Questa mattina a Parigi la Banca Europea per la Ricostruzione e lo
Sviluppo ha reso noto un rapporto sull’andamento del PIL italiano negli
ultimi dieci anni: la ricchezza prodotta dal paese è diminuita del 19%.
Il numero di disoccupati è salito a circa 6milioni mentre le
organizzazioni del volontariato denunciano il boom dei bambini di strada
che sfiorano ormai i 400.000 facendo la gioia dei pedofili in tutta
Europa. In questi dieci anni quasi 4 milioni di italiani sono emigrati
all’estero.
In una nota aggiuntiva del Commissario europeo Pisher, si rileva come
dieci anni fa in Europa ci fossero 28 stati ed ora ce ne siano 57 ma di
cui solo 11 hanno una popolazione superiore ai 10 milioni di abitanti.
In una intervista al Wall Street Journal, il presidente della
multinazionale tedesca Bekembauer ha dichiarato “Oggi investire in
questi nuovi paesi europei è molto più vantaggioso di dieci anni fa”.
Per il giornale radio è tutto , buona notte a tutti.

TUTTO QUESTO E’ VERAMENTE ACCADUTO; E’ ACCADUTO IN QUESTI MESI A POCHE
CENTINAIA DI CHILOMETRI DA NOI, SULL’ALTRA SPONDA DEL MAR ADRIATIC0 IN
UN PAESE CHE SI CHIAMAVA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA.

Il riferimento a fatti e personaggi è puramente casuale e frutto di
fantasia.

(a cura di Radio Citta' Aperta e Contropiano:
http://www.pplink.org/ )

---

Questo e' il bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").

Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid=91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Sito WEB del Coordinamento:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Una newsletter personale,
un forum web personale,
una mailing list personale, ...?
Gratis sotto
http://www.ecircle.it/ad308444/www.ecircle.it

This email is being sent on behalf of jaredi@...
as part of the list "emperorsclothes", that you joined.
URL: http://www.emperors-clothes.com
------------------------------------------------------------


The URL for this article is
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-4.htm

www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]

UNJUST FROM THE START, PART IV: LEARNING FROM THE INQUISITION

By Dr. Kosta Cavoski

[Part IV concludes this series of articles on the War Crimes Tribunal by
Professor Cavoski, the distinguished Yugoslav law scholar.]

MASKED WITNESSES

When in the medieval age the Inquisition wanted to protect an important
witness who was ready to testify that he/she had seen a suspect
communicating with the devil the witness was allowed to appear in court
with a mask, or hood, over the face. This was how the court heard the
"truth", and the witness was protected from the evil eye of the witch
who might take revenge after being burned at the stake.

In its fervent desire to protect the victims and witnesses of war crimes
in the former Yugoslavia from the [Serbian] devil, the makers of the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence similarly undertook to disguise the
identity of these victims and witnesses.

Thus, according to Rule 69 "in exceptional circumstances, the Prosecutor
may apply to a Trial Chamber to order the non-disclosure of the identity
of a victim or witness who may be in danger or at risk until such a
person is brought under the protection of the Tribunal. This type of
temporary concealment of a victim's or witnesses' identity can be
understood, especially as paragraph (C) of this Rule stipulates that
"the identity of the victim or witness shall be disclosed in sufficient
time prior to the trial to allow adequate time for preparation of the
defense".

What should not have been allowed under any circumstances was the
permanent concealment of the identity of victims or witnesses, neither
the allowing of a witness to refuse to answer a question on "grounds of
confidentiality". This is foreseen in Rule 70 paragraphs (B), (C) and
(D). Inasmuch as the Prosecutor obtains information given to him on
condition it remains confidential he can not disclose its source without
the agreement of the person or entity (15) who supplied it. This would
not be so unusual if such information were not used as evidence at the
trial. But the Prosecutor, with the consent of the person or
representative of an entity, may decide to use documents and other
material obtained in this way as evidence at the trial. In this case -
and this is indeed something very new - "the Trial Chamber may not order
either party to produce additional evidence received from the person or
entity providing the initial information, nor may the Trial Chamber, for
the purpose !
of obtaining such additional evidence itself summon that person or a
representative of that entity as a witness or order their attendance".
Still, the Prosecutor may call as a witness a person or entity that has
offered confidential information, but the Trial Chamber may not compel
the witness to answer any question the witness declines to answer on the
grounds of confidentiality.

One can ask what kind of witness gives the Prosecutor confidential
information and then refuses to answer further questions as to how such
information was obtained when the Trial Chamber has no right to insist.
As a rule they are undercover agents who have been operating illegally
in foreign countries in order to collect information that can not be
obtained by regular means. They are also governmental representatives
who have provided The Hague Tribunal with confidential information on
condition that it conceal the source of the information as well as the
manner in which it was obtained. The only remaining question is whether
such "evidence" can be accepted as valid or such clandestine "witnesses"
believed at all.

Another innovation that was introduced by the makers of the Rules was
testimony without the obligation to appear at the trial. According to
Rule 71, at the request of either party, the Trial Chamber "may, in
exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice, order a
deposition be taken for use at trial and appoint for that purpose, a
Presiding Officer". Naturally, it sometimes happens that an important
witness, for health reasons, is unable to leave his home or hospital to
attend a trial. But in such cases a hearing, under the presidency of the
judge, is held in the witness' room where the witness answers the
questions of the prosecution and defense. Allowing a court officer to
take a deposition on his own whenever the Trial Chamber considers it to
be "in the interest of justice", increases the possibility of abuse and
prevents the confrontation of witnesses testifying differently about the
same subject.

The greatest "innovations" introduced by the Rules was the permanent
concealment of the identity of witnesses, victims or anyone related to
or associated with them. Under the guise of preserving privacy and
protecting a witness or victim, according to Rule 75 a judge or trial
chamber can, at a session in camera [i.e., a closed session], take:

"measures to prevent disclosure to the public or the media of the
identity or whereabouts of a victim or a witness, or of persons related
to or associated with him by such means as:

a) expunging names and identifying information from the Chamber's public
record;

b) non-disclosure to the public of any records identifying the victim;

c) giving the testimony through image - or voice-altering devices or
closed circuit television and

d) assignment of a pseudonym."

Even this was not enough for the makers of these Rules and so they added
the possibility of closed sessions and appropriate measures to
facilitate the testimony of vulnerable victims and witnesses, such as
one-way closed circuit television.

JUDICATURE WITHOUT SOVEREIGNTY

There is no doubt whatsoever that the measures for the protection of a
witness which the Holy Inquisition was capable of offering were a
child's game compared to those provided by the Ruler of The Hague
Tribunal. The Inquisition was only able to offer a frightened witness
the possibility to enter the court by a side door under cover of night
and with a hood over the head. Possibly, and very probably, the
Inquisition would have taken the same measures as The Hague Tribunal
Rules had it been able to use the technology at the disposal of The
Hague judges today.

So as to understand more easily the "singularity" and also the
exceptional possibilities of violation of the aforementioned measures
for protecting a victim or witness, we will present a hypothetical
example. Let us suppose that in an American city with disturbed and very
strained inter-racial relations the sexual assault of a member of one
race group by a member of another takes place. Terrified by the possible
revenge of the relations and neighbors of the attacker, the victim asks
the court to be allowed to testify under a pseudonym using image- and
voice- altering devices. Would the American court allow this? Certainly
not. And one of the reasons would be that such "testimony" would prevent
a fair trial.

After such a convincing example, it is necessary to ask the following
question. Why can American courts refuse this type of testimony and The
Hague Tribunal accepts it when both are concerned with the protection of
a victim or witness from possible reprisal by the accused, his relatives
or friends? The answer is surprising: the American court firmly believes
that the American judicature, including the police, is capable of
offering such protection. And as a rule it is, except in the rare cases
of organized crime. The Hague Tribunal is well aware that it is not up
to this and justifiably assumes that the so-called international
community, as embodied by the Security Council, has no intention
whatsoever of protecting any victim or witness from the Balkan cauldron.
So, if no-one is ready to protect the victims or witnesses, then at
least their identity can be hidden.

Had they taken one more step in forming this judgment, the Hague judges
would have had to ask themselves whether, under such conditions, they
should have taken on the job of judging at all if in order to protect
victims and witnesses they had to use measures that were implemented by
the Holy Inquisition. Had they any idea of the concept of sovereignty,
they would have asked the Security Council how it thought they could
take to court anyone if they were unable to provide the conditions
necessary for the execution of judicature. When in his famous work
"Leviathan" Thomas Hobbes demonstrated the essential traits of
sovereignty, he included

"the Right of Judicature, that is to say, of hearing and deciding all
Controversies which may arise concerning Law, either Civil or Natural or
concerning Fact".(16)

In the execution of judicature it is most important that sovereignty
provides general and complete protection of all subjects from injustice
by others. Because otherwise

"to every man remainth, from the natural and necessary appetite of his
own conservation, the right of protecting himself by his private
strength, which is the condition of War, and contrary to the end for
which every Common-wealth is instituted".(17)

In other words, he who would judge and is able to do so, is sovereign;
and as sovereign is bound to offer all subjects staunch protection from
violence and the injustice of others. Who is unable of offering the
second should not stand in judgment because he is not sovereign. The
members of the Security Council, particularly the permanent members,
wanted the first - to judge - without being capable of providing the
second - reliable protection. This resulted in the concealment of the
victims' and witnesses' identities and other measures as a clumsy
attempt to achieve what must be provided by a well instituted and
effective sovereign power.

Due to these important failings on the part of the Security Council and
The Hague Tribunal, a whole series of other unusual regulations to the
ridicule and shame of this Tribunal and its founders were created.
Particularly characteristic is Rule 99 which allows the arrest of a
suspect who has been acquitted. Truly a contradiction! However, this
contradiction came about for practical reasons. When the jury of an
American court of first instance brings a verdict of not guilty the
accused leaves the court room a free man, able to go where he will. The
prosecution can, of course, appeal against the first instance verdict
but it can not demand that an acquitted person stay in detention until a
second instance verdict is given. Sometimes the second instance court
revokes the first instance verdict and demands a retrial. Since the
suspect is free it may happen that he will not answer a summons by the
first instance court This, however, does not cause much worry as it is
assumed that !
the police, as an organ of sovereignty, must be capable of carrying out
every court order and bringing the person in question to trial.

The judges of The Hague Tribunal know very well although they are unable
to admit this publicly, that their sovereignty applies only to the court
room in which they judge and the prison where witnesses, suspects and
the accused are held. This forced them to make these contradictory
rules. In paragraph (A) of Rule 99, they stipulate that "in case of
acquittal the accused shall be released immediately". Then in paragraph
(B) they recant this rule by allowing the Trial Chamber, at the mere
hint of the Prosecutor submitting an appeal to "issue a warrant for the
arrest of the accused to take effect immediately". Thanks to this
sophistry, the accused can be freed and arrested at one stroke. Had The
Hague judges the ability to think logically, they would have otherwise
formulated the rule applied here: the Prosecutor shall decide on the
freeing or detaining of a person acquitted by a first instance Trial
Chamber. Truly in the spirit of the aforesaid Ottoman proverb: "The Cadi
prosecu!
tes, and the Cadi sentences".

To those well acquainted with constitutional and criminal law the rule
that allows for a witness to testify against himself is a real surprise.
Modern criminal law explicitly forbids this and a witness can refuse to
answer incriminating questions. For a long time this important legal
guarantee has been represented by the Fifth Amendment of the US
Constitution of 1787 whereby "no person .... shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself ".

The authors of The Hague Tribunal Rules did not pay much attention to
this great example and wrote Rule 90 paragraph (E) which allows for
forced self-incrimination:

"A witness may object to making any statement which might tend to
incriminate him. The Chamber may, however, compel the witness to answer
the question. Testimony compelled in this way shall not be used as
evidence in a subsequent prosecution against the witness for any offense
other than perjury".

It is worthwhile asking why the rule makers allowed for the forced
self-incrimination of a witness if such evidence would not be used
against him. They were probably presuming that war crimes are most often
carried out by groups of people who, if they are forced to do so, will
implicate each other. Supposing The Hague Tribunal had the opportunity
of imprisoning two persons suspected of committing the same war crime
without either knowing the fate of the other. One could be forced to
testify against the other with the assurance that his testimony would
not be used against him, and vice versa. In this way the Prosecutor can
obtain evidence against them both without there formally having been any
self- incrimination. To our great surprise the rule makers were very
perfidious in this matter, with no concern for the fact that their
resourcefulness and ingeniousness was in direct contradiction to the
principle of modern criminal law that self-incriminating cannot be
exacted.

Finally, the above mentioned rules contain a series of undefined
concepts which allow for whimsicality and caprice. A characteristic
example is given by Rule 79 which permits the exclusion of the media and
public from court proceedings or part of the proceedings for the
following reasons:

1) public order or morality;

2) safety, security or non-disclosure of the identity of a victim or
witness, or

3) the protection of the interests of justice.

In a well founded legal system only public order and morality are
considered to be valid reasons for the partial or complete exclusion of
the public from court proceedings, and this only under strictly defined
circumstances. The secrecy of court proceedings through concealment of
the identity of a victim or witness is inadmissible, as already shown,
while the "interests of justice" as a reason for the exclusion of the
public, is yet another innovation whereby The Hague Tribunal "enriched"
legal theory and practice. Justice is the supreme legal value and since
law and judicature exist for the realization of justice, the provision
of "interests of justice" as one of the reasons for the exclusion of the
public was done in order to create a blanket discretionary norm which
would allow the Trial Chamber to do what it wanted under the umbrella of
expediency. The term was also introduced as an excuse for the taking of
depositions for later use at a trial (Rule 71 paragraph A) and acc!
eptance of evidence of a consistent pattern of conduct relevant to
serious violations of international humanitarian law (Rule 93 paragraph
A).

Finally, Prosecutor Richard Goldstone did not want to miss the chance of
possibly using or abusing the very elastic norms containing the loose
term "interests of justice". This is why he included in the regulations
regarding his own power (being his own legislator), the stipulation that
in certain circumstances he could grant any concessions to persons who
participated in alleged offenses in order to secure their evidence in
the prosecution of others (for example, by refraining from prosecuting
an accomplice in return for the testimony of the accomplice against
another offender), and that this "may be appropriate in the interests of
justice".(18) He hereby made it known that he would be acting on his own
will and not in his official capacity, and that certain executors of
alleged crimes could be acquitted in return for cooperation, i.e. if
they were willing to blame their accomplices. This kind of trade-off was
what he called justice.

"THE JUSTICE WHICH IS NOT SEEN TO BE DONE"

Justice is taken to infer a certain type of equality, primarily an
elementary equality before the law. It would appear that the members of
the Security Council knew this when they introduced the following
regulation into the Statute of the International Tribunal:

"All persons shall be equal before the International Tribunal" (article
21, paragraph l).

This kind of equality is taken to mean that all detained persons at The
Hague have exactly the same conditions of detention and that no
exceptions will be made. However, The Hague Tribunal judges believed
that justice was what they thought it to be, and so they introduced into
their rules a regulation allowing for important differences in the
conditions of detention. According to Rule 64

"the President of the Tribunal may, on the application of a party,
request modification of the conditions of detention of an accused".

This is as if a Mafia boss in the US were to request of the judge
responsible for trying his case that he be allowed to await trial in his
own villa from where he had previously carried out his "business" on
condition he pay from his own pocket a prison guard to prevent him from
absconding.

However paradoxical this example may seem, this is what happened at The
Hague. While the terminally ill Serb General Djordje Djukic was interned
in a prison cell without adequate medical care, the Croat General
Tihomir Blaskic, through his powerful patrons, made a deal with the
Tribunal President that he await trial in a luxurious villa surrounded
by guards paid by his "friends", instead of in prison. According to
Antonio Cassese this was done in the interests of justice - the kind of
"justice" whereby it is easy "to be a cardinal if your father is the
pope".

There is an English saying: "Justice has not only to be done, but it has
to be seen to be done". What could be seen at The Hague was not justice
but caprice and injustice.

***

Footnotes

(15) Being a state, one of its institutions or some organization.

(16) Thomas Hobbes, "Leviathan", edited by C.B. Macpherson,
Harmondsworth. Penguin Books 1982, p. 234

(17) Ibid.

(18) Regulation No. 1 of 1994, as amended 17 May 1995.

***

We get by with a little help from our friends...

We receive all our funding from individuals like you, that is, from
people who have a critical attitude toward the Official Truth. We would
like everyone to read Emperor's Clothes whether they can afford to
contribute financially or not, but if you can make a contribution,
please do. Recently we were shut down for almost a week by a hacker. We
are taking steps to improve our security and also to increase the number
of people who hear about Emperor's Clothes. These improvements cost
money.

Small contributions help and so do big ones.

To make a donation, please mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box
610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)

Or click here to use our secure server.

Or call 617 916-1705 between 9:30 AM and 5:30 PM, Eastern Time (USA) and
ask for Bob. He we will take your credit card information over the
phone.

Thanks for reading Emperor's Clothes.

www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]

---


Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"

I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")

Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Una newsletter personale,
un forum web personale,
una mailing list personale, ...?
Gratis sotto
http://www.ecircle.it/ad201158/www.ecircle.it

URL est http://emperors-clothes.com/french/articles/cent-f.htm

Cent millions pour la démocratie ?

Comment les États-Unis ont créé une opposition corrompue en Serbie

Alors que les résultats des élections en Yougoslavie défraient la
manchette, nous publions des extraits d’un texte sur l’opposition serbe
écrit par Michel Chossudovsky (Canada), Jared Israël (États-Unis), Peter

Maher (États-Unis), Max Sinclair (États-Unis), Karen Talbot (Covert
Action Quarterly des États-Unis) et Niko Varkevisser (Global Reflexion,
Pays-Bas). 15-09-2000

www.tenc.net
[Les nouveaux Habits de l'Empereur]

La coalition de l’opposition yougoslave se proclame « démocratique et
indépendante ». Toutefois, nos recherches démontrent qu’elle est
contrôlée par Washington, par les mêmes personnes qui sont intervenues
au cours des dix dernières années pour tenter de disloquer la
Yougoslavie.

Des audiences révélatrices devant le Sénat américain

En juillet 1999, le Sénat américain a tenu des audiences sur la Serbie.
L’envoyé spécial des États-Unis dans les Balkans, Robert Gelbard, son
assistant, James Pardew, et le sénateur Joseph Biden ont témoigné. Ils
ont affirmé ouvertement que les États-Unis finançaient et contrôlaient
la soi-disant opposition « indépendante et démocratique ».

La journée qui a précédé les audiences, le Sénat américain a voté cent
millions de dollars pour cette opposition. L’envoyé spécial Gelbard a
déclaré : « Au cours des deux années qui ont mené à la crise du Kosovo,
nous avons dépensé 16,5 millions $ dans différents programmes pour
soutenir la démocratisation de la Serbie. » Il a ajouté que plus de 20
millions $ ont été octroyés à Milo Djukanovic qui dirige le gouvernement

de la République yougoslave du Montenegro.

Cet argent a servi à financer, voire même créer, des partis politiques,
des stations de radio et même des syndicats. Si une puissance étrangère
avait agi de la sorte aux États-Unis, leurs agents locaux auraient été
jetés en prison.

Le témoignage de James Pardew, l’assistant de Gelbard

Pardew : « Nous sommes intervenus par le biais d’organisations non
gouvernementales. Nous avons établi un anneau autour de la Serbie
d’émissions internationales, mais nous l’offrons également aux voix
indépendantes de Serbie qui utilisent les installations internationales.

» (Remarquez l’utilisation peu usuelle de l’expression « indépendante »
qui signifie « indépendantes d’eux mais dépendantes des États-Unis ».)

Le sénateur Joseph Biden ne semble pas croire que les mesures décrites
par Pardew soient suffisantes.

Biden : « Nous pouvons rendre des installations disponibles. Mais
sommes-nous prêts à fermer les installations qui répandent de la
propagande ? »

Gelbard essaya de défendre la politique du gouvernement américain, en
soulignant que durant la guerre, l’an dernier, contre la Yougoslavie,
les États-Unis avaient effectivement « fermé » les installations de la
télévision serbe en les bombardant.

Gelbard : « Eh bien, nous avons, sénateur, au cours du conflit du
Kosovo, avec nos alliés... »

Le sénateur Biden l’interrompt, craignant que Gelbard en dise trop.

Biden : « Non, je sais cela. Je veux savoir ce qui se fait maintenant. »

Gelbard : « Eh bien, en autant que je sache, les communications n’ont
pas été rétablies entre la télévision serbe et les installations
Eutelsat et nous nous sommes assurés qu’elles seraient interrompues si
on essayait de les rétablir. »

Le sénateur Biden et l’envoyé spécial Gelbard ont eu cet échange au
sujet de l’« opposition démocratique en Serbie ».

Biden : « Que pouvons-nous faire en Serbie même ? Par exemple, Vuk
Draskovic continue à nier l’accès à Studio B, qui est supposément... »

Gelbard : « Non, il vient de donner accès à Studio B à la Radio B-92,
qui vient de rouvrir sous le nom de Radio B-292. Nous voulons que
Draskovic ouvre Studio B au reste de l’opposition et c’est le message
que nous lui acheminerons au cours des prochains jours. »

Rappelons que Gelbard était le principal conseiller de Clinton à propos
de la Yougoslavie et que Biden fait partie des principaux sénateurs
américains engagés dans l’opposition contre la Serbie. Ces deux hommes
sont tellement impliqués dans le contrôle de l’opposition « indépendante

» de la Serbie qu’ils savent – à la minute près – si Draskovic, Djindjic

et Djukanovic se partagent équitablement espace et temps d’antenne au
Studio B à Belgrade.

Soutenir un seul candidat

L’Agence France-Presse rapportait le 2 août dernier qu’une délégation de

« l’opposition démocratique » avait rencontré les dirigeants du
Montenegro pour les convaincre de soutenir le candidat de l’« opposition

démocratique » à la présidence.

« La délégation serbe comprenait Zoran Djindjic du Parti démocratique et

Vojislav Kostunica du Mouvement démocratique pour la Serbie, le candidat

pressenti pour faire face à Milosevic. »

« La rencontre eut lieu le lendemain de la rencontre de la secrétaire
d’État Madeleine Albright avec le président monténégrin Milo Djukanovic
à Rome, au cours de laquelle elle pressa de façon urgente les groupes
d’opposition à abandonner leurs menaces de boycott des élections et de
s’unir pour vaincre Milosevic. »

D’autres informations nous sont parvenues sur le voyage de Albright à
Rome et sur sa rencontre avec Djukanovic.

« En plus des échéances électorales, Albright a déclaré qu’elle avait
discuté avec Djukanovic des moyens d’accroître l’aide au Montenegro qui
est en proie à une crise économique » (Agence France-Presse, 1er août
2000). Ainsi, Albright a offert des fonds à Milo Djukanovic s’il
acceptait d’apporter son soutien à la soi-disant opposition «
indépendante ».

Au début, Djukanovic refusa. Kostunica le critiqua publiquement de ne
pas se joindre à son équipe. Puis, le 11 septembre, Djukanovic endossa
la candidature de Kostunica. Albright en a eu pour son argent.

C’est un coup de chance pour les agents américains en Yougoslavie
d’avoir réussi, en travaillant avec les gens du National Endowment for
Democracy, de manœuvrer Kostunica dans une alliance avec Djindjic et
Djukanovic et plusieurs autres sous le parapluie américain.

L’organisation de Kostunica est très faible. Sa campagne électorale
dépend des partis, groupes et médias contrôlés par les États-Unis. S’il
remporte la victoire, les marionnettes locales des États-Unis lui
fourniront le personnel étatique requis.

Le programme de l’« opposition démocratique »

L’« opposition démocratique » a fait sienne un programme rédigé par le
G-17, un groupe d’économistes néolibéraux de Belgrade, financé par le
National Endowment for Democracy. Ce programme est disponible sur les
sites web du G-17 et du « groupe étudiant » Otpor. Il comprend un
certain nombre d’items que l’« opposition démocratique » s’est engagée à

mettre en œuvre dans le cas d’une victoire aux élections présidentielles

ou dans d’autres élections. Les principaux points du programme sont les
suivants :

L’adoption du mark allemand comme monnaie pour l’ensemble de la
Yougoslavie, suivant en cela ce qui s’est fait en Bosnie, au Kosovo et
au Montenegro.

Cela aurait pour effet d’appauvrir immédiatement le peuple yougoslave en

transformant le pays en dépendance économique de l’Allemagne.

La fin du contrôle des prix. La fin des subventions pour la nourriture,
la fin des protections sociales.

Le peuple travailleur, y compris le million de réfugiés dont les
conditions sont déjà difficiles, devra acheter la nourriture aux prix
occidentaux, mais sans les salaires occidentaux.

Un traitement de choc pour transformer la Yougoslavie en pays
capitaliste sans d’abord accorder aux Yougoslaves les moyens financiers
nécessaires pour participer à une telle économie. Il en résultera la
transfert en des mains étrangères du contrôle de l’ensemble de
l’économie yougoslave. De telles applications de la soi-disant «
idéologie économique moderne » ont déjà réussi à détruire l’économie
russe.

Curieusement, le programme ne mentionne pas l’agression criminelle de
l’OTAN contre la Yougoslavie.

Le programme appelle à réduire les dépenses publiques, démilitariser et
apporter de radicales transformations au système de taxation. Toutes ces

mesures permettront à la Yougoslavie d’être contrôlée de l’extérieur.

Le programme accepte le diktat américain selon lequel la Yougoslavie
n’existe plus et que la Serbie devra se mettre à genoux devant
Washington pour être reconnue à nouveau sur la scène internationale.

Cela signifie la reddition immédiate de tous les actifs et des droits
historiques de l’État yougoslave. Ces actifs incluent des milliards de
dollars en ambassades, navires, avions, comptes de banque gelés à
travers le monde, actifs à l’étranger et propriétés accumulés par le
peuple yougoslave depuis la fin de la Première Guerre mondiale.

Le National Endowment for Democracy et le mécanisme de la subversion

Dans son témoignage, Gelbard a affirmé que le gouvernement américain
avait distribué de l’argent en Yougoslavie par l’intermédiaire d’une
soi-disant « organisation non-gouvernementale », le National Endowment
for Democracy (Fonds national pour la démocratie). Mais il ne s’agit pas

d’un organisme non-gouvernemental. Il est financé par le Congrès
américain !

Le National Endowment for Democracy a été créé en 1983 pour un but bien
précis. Tout le monde savait à ce moment-là que la CIA poursuivait les
objectifs de la politique américaine en soudoyant des gens et en mettant

sur pied des groupes bidons. Comme le souligne le Washington Post : «
Lorsque ces activités étaient révélées (ce qui était inévitable),
l’effet était dévastateur. » (22 septembre 1991)

Le Congrès américain a alors mis sur pied le National Endowment for
Democracy dans le but de faire ouvertement ce que la CIA avait
l’habitude de faire clandestinement. Il y avait là un grand avantage. La

subversion n’étant plus secrète, elle ne pouvait plus faire l’objet de
révélations !

Bénéficiant de fonds considérables, le National Endowment for Democracy
et ses filières ont commencé à recruter dans les pays ciblés des «
activistes pour la démocratie », des « activistes pour la paix » et des
« économistes indépendants ». Ces gens furent invités à festoyer dans
les plus grands restaurants et reçurent beaucoup d’argent pour leurs
comptes de dépense. On leur octroya des bourses d’études et des stages à

l’étranger. On cultiva chez eux l’idée qu’ils étaient les leaders de
demain de l’empire américain.

Ces « activistes » créèrent des « organisations indépendantes » dans
leur propre pays et sollicitèrent des fonds auprès du National Endowment

for Democracy qui, rappelons-le, les avait lui-même recrutés ! Et le
National Endowment for Democracy leur octroya les fonds demandés !

www.tenc.net
[Les nouveaux Habits de l'Empereur]

---


Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"

I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")

Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita:
la tua agenda sul web - per te e per i tuoi amici
Organizza on line i tuoi appuntamenti .
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.ecircle.it/ad196333/www.ecircle.it