URL for this article:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/ian/day.htm
=======================================
THE JUDGE AS PROSECUTOR: TWO DAYS AT THE
"TRIAL" OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
By Ian Johnson
Leigh, Lancashire * UK
[Posted 19 June 2002]
NOTE: For audio of 'trial' go to
http://hague.bard.edu/video.html
For transcripts, go to
http://www.un.org/icty/latest/index.htm
=======================================
Introduction: Ian Johnson recounts an
incident that occurred while he was
attending the Milosevic 'trial' at The Hague
on June 7th:
"During the morning break I met a young
Dutch lad in the lobby. He was
studying medicine in Vienna but was staying
for the summer with his
grandfather in Holland. He was curious about
the Milosevic case. Of course
he couldn't find it on the television. So
he'd come over to watch with his
own eyes. He saw me taking notes and
approached me. He wanted to see if I
was thinking what he was thinking. His
English was excellent. He said, "I
don't know that much about the issues, but
anyone can see this isn't a
proper trial, is it? The Judge is totally
against him. In fact he's openly
contemptuous of Mr. Milosevic, isn't he?
What's going on here?"
I work as a paralegal in the UK. So for me,
the perversion of justice I had
just witnessed - and with a British judge
presiding! - was infuriating. But
here was this young Dutch lad, not in the
legal profession or involved in
defending Mr. Milosevic at all, but a
thinking person, and he was horrified
as well. He wanted to know why his country
was supporting such a travesty.
This is why they have stopped showing the
proceedings on television.
Because the people, and especially the young
people, wouldn't stand for it,
would they?"
Here is Ian Johnson's account of:
TWO DAYS AT THE "TRIAL" OF SLOBODAN
MILOSEVIC
To spend one day at The Hague Tribunal is
enough to confirm the worst of
suspicions. What is actually taking place in
the heart of 'democratic'
Europe is a show-trial so blatant, so
lacking in legality, that it brings
shame to those who are participating in it
and to those who refuse to
challenge it.
The history of the Tribunal's formation and
funding is well documented.
Originally an idea that emanated from the
United States Department of the
Army, it was brought into being via the UN
Security Council in its
Resolutions 808 and 827 of 1993. Not only
was this act legally invalid,
being that the Security Council had no
authority in judicial matters to
establish such a Tribunal, but its creation
also involved a
reinterpretation of the UN Charter.
Canadian lawyer Christopher Black observed
the following:
"...the UN is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of its
members, a fundamental principle of
international law and the first
guarantee of the right to self-determination
of the world's peoples. If a
people do not have the right of sovereignty,
the right to
self-determination is a sham. This principle
is completely denied by the
creation of the Tribunal. The UN Charter
states that nothing contained in
the Charter shall authorise the UN to
intervene in matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction
of any state. This fundamental
principle, put in the Charter so that the UN
could not be used by some
members to bully others has also been
fatally undermined by the creation of
the Tribunal. The members of the Security
Council, more precisely, the
permanent members, now hold the opposite
position, and I submit, do so for
reasons connected more with imperialism not
humanitarianism." (1)
The Tribunal's funding exposes its political
character. Much of it comes
from the US government through cash and
equipment, with other notable
contributors being the Rockefeller family,
Time-Warner, who own CNN and
have exclusive rights to broadcast the
trial, and American billionaire
financier George Soros. The Soros connection
is significant. The Coalition
for International Justice (CIJ), founded and
funded by George Soros,
supplies many of the Tribunal's legal staff.
The George Soros foundation,
the Open Society Institute, is one of the
parties that obtain evidence for
the Tribunal, and most tellingly, the Open
Society Institute funds the main
KLA newspaper in Pristina, a fact that has
not been mentioned once by the
western media.
POLITICAL BIAS IN ACTION
Even if one had no knowledge of the
Tribunal's history, a brief visit to
Courtroom One of the Hague Tribunal to
witness the trial of Slobodan
Milosevic would immediately give cause for
concern.
Unlike the practice in criminal courts The
Hague court itself is involved
in the laying of charges and the approval of
one of the trial judges must
be obtained before a charge can be laid.
This extraordinary relationship between the
prosecution and judges
undermines the right of the accused to a
presumption of innocence.
Furthermore this close relationship can be
witnessed in the day to day
proceedings at The Hague.
I visited the Tribunal during the first week
of June 2002 and can bear
witness to the various ways this hand in
glove operation of prosecutor and
judge appears in practice.
I heard the testimony of several prosecution
witnesses during the sessions
I attended.
Each witness gave their, sometimes lengthy,
statements that were then
elaborated on by the prosecution and on
occasions involved photographs and
maps. At no time during this process did the
judge, Richard May, stipulate
a time limit on the prosecution. Yet when it
was the turn of Mr Milosevic
to cross-examine the witness, Judge May
would instruct that a time limit be
put on proceedings. At one point, in
response to protests from Mr
Milosevic, Judge May arrogantly proclaimed,
"We are the judges Mr Milosevic
and we have judged that you will have
forty-five minutes to cross-examine
this witness." (7th June 2002).
Basically a cross-examination should take as
long as it takes, be it ten
minutes or ten hours, especially as the
accused is facing the gravest
charges any human being can face. But in the
peculiar rules and procedures
of this particular court, the trial judges
will ensure that this is not the
case.
Additionally, the Tribunal has been given
the absolute authority to devise
its own rules and procedures, an unheard of
situation in any other
circumstance.
When we come to the way the judges attempt
to 'protect' the prosecution
witnesses from any piercing
cross-examination of their statements the
full
political bias of the court is revealed. I
understand from other reports
that this is a daily occurrence, however I
will limit myself here to what I
personally witnessed.
On the 6th June prosecution witness Mr Buyo,
a KLA commander in the Racak
zone during 1999, in his testimony relating
to events surrounding the
alleged Racak 'massacre', initially claimed
that Serbian security forces
had opened fire first.
However, later in his testimony when
explaining the KLA's actions, he
testified that his own forces had merely
fired warning shots into the air
so as to alert their colleagues of the
approaching Serb forces.
Mr Milosevic seized on this discrepancy and
pointedly asked the witness,
"Why, if it was true that the Serbian
security forces had fired first, was
it necessary to fire warning shots into the
air?" A quite reasonable
assumption one would have thought. If you
are under attack there is no need
for any colleague of yours to fire shots in
the air warning you of an
approaching enemy.
Mr Milosevic attempted to drive home the
significance of this discrepancy
at which point, with the witness clearly in
trouble, Judge May intervened
and instructed, "Move on Mr Milosevic, you
have laboured this point enough.
Go on to another question." Mr Buyo was off
the hook.
A further witness, who admitted his brother
was a member of the KLA,
claimed he was an eyewitness to a 'massacre'
of civilians in his village
near Bela Crkva
He testified that Serb forces had entered
his peaceful village, separated
the women and children from the men and
proceeded to execute seventy men,
women and children.
In his cross-examination (time limit
imposed) Mr Milosevic asked why, if
they killed seventy men, women and children
so indiscriminately, would they
bother separating them in the first place?
After a lengthy silence from the
witness Judge May interjected, "I don't
think you can expect the witness to
know that."
The witness's credibility was further
undermined when he denied any
knowledge of the KLA kidnapping of both Serb
and Albanian residents in his
village just a few weeks earlier, claiming
he must have been away at the
time and upon his return no villagers
mentioned it to him. Up to that date
the kidnapping was the biggest event to
occur in his village for years,
yet, as a life long resident there, he had
never even heard about it.
Proceedings were taking a predictable
course. It didn't take much insight
to grasp the following: A) The witnesses
told a well-rehearsed story. B) If
the witnesses got into difficulties during
the cross-examination the Judge
would intervene.
INADEQUATE WHEN CHALLENGED
This observation was further confirmed with
the appearance of one Mr Ian
Robert Hendrie, a member of the London
Metropolitan Police who had been
seconded to the OSCE and was part of the
verification mission in Racak
headed by William Walker.
Mr Hendrie told of his observations while he
was touring the Racak
'massacre' site, using several photographs
that he had taken personally.
Under cross-examination, when asked if he
toured the site alone or if
somebody had showed him around, he replied
that the latter was the case.
"Who showed you around the site?" enquired
Mr Milosevic. "I don't know,"
was the astonishing response.
Here was a member of the verification team
who could not verify who it was
that told him about the 'massacre' and
showed him the supposed evidence.
But apparently Mr. Hendrie's testimony,
dependent as it was on a guide and
translator whom he could not identify, was
neverthless acceptable, because
Judge May impatiently instructed Mr.
Milosevic to move on to another
question.
However the other questions got Mr Hendrie
into deeper trouble. He could
not explain why his photographs showed only
patches of blood and not pools
as would be expected. Nor could he explain
why no person's blood had
spilled onto another person's body, which it
was logical to assume would
have been the case if all these bodies,
densely packed together, had been
killed simultaneously at this one specific
place.
Enter Judge May. "The witness is not a
forensic expert and cannot be
expected to know these things." In other
words, Mr. Hendrie's expertise had
a dual nature. It was sufficient when he was
testifying against Mr.
Milosevic, but woefully inadequate when he
was challenged.
Comments such as this, which pepper the
trial every day, might be expected
from the prosecution, but from a supposedly
neutral trial Judge?
When asked by the defendant if he had ever
heard of the 'paraffin test', (a
test which can determine if a person had
recently handled a firearm), Mr
Hendrie didn't answer but left it to Judge
May to announce that, "This test
has been discredited" to which Mr Milosevic
added with a touch of sarcasm
"But only in the USA, not in Yugoslavia."
Mr Yemeni was the last prosecution witness I
observed during my June visit.
In his statement he claimed to have
witnessed the killing of civilians in
his village in Kosovo. He claimed he was
hiding in his attic from where he
supposedly witnessed the 'killings' and also
overheard Yugoslav commanders
communicating on mobile phones and comparing
the number of dead with the
number of dead at Racak. Mr Yemeni, at the
age of twenty-four, was Mayor of
his village.
Below I paraphrase excerpts of the
cross-examination:
Mr Milosevic. "Are you a member of the KLA?"
Mr Yemeni. "No."
Mr M. "Are you a member of any political
party?"
Mr Y. "Yes"
Me M. "What is your party called?"
Mr Y. "The Democratic Party"
Mr M. "Who is the leader of your party?"
Mr Y. "Mr. Thaci." [Mr Thaci was a leader of
the KLA in 1999]. ***
Mr M. "When did you join this party?"
Mr Y. "I don't know."
Mr M. "You don't know when you joined? All
right. Approximately when did
you join?"
Mr Y. " I don't know"
Judge May. "Mr Milosevic, move on, it is not
relevant when he joined the
party."
Mr M. "It is very relevant. However. How is
it that you were Mayor of your
village at such a young age? This is very
unusual."
Mr Y. " I was Mayor because I represent
modern civilisation, unlike the
backward Serbs. Modern civilisation that we
are now building in Kosovo
needs leaders like myself to take them out
of the backwardness that Serbs
kept them in. We are building a civilisation
that is modern and we need
intelligent people like me."
Judge May allowed this racist diatribe to go
on without comment.
Mr M. "I didn't know I was talking to an
intellectual. However, let me ask
you about the conversations that you say you
overheard between commanders.
Where were you when you overheard these
conversations?"
Mr Y "Hiding in the attic of my house."
Mr M. "And what was the position of the
soldiers who were using their
phones?"
Mr Y. "On the balcony of a house facing my
attic window."
Mr M. "Which is how far away?"
Mr Y. "Fifteen metres."
Mr Milosevic holds up a photograph for the
witness that shows the houses in
question.
Mr M. "As you can see there is no balcony
facing your attic. And the
nearest house is more like fifty metres
away. Is that right or not?"
Mr Y. "No."
Judge May. "Move on Mr. Milosevic. The
witness has told you his position."
Mr M. "Very well. As there were no KLA in
your village, as you say, and
therefore the villagers saw no reason to
flee, as you say in your
statement, why then did you feel it
necessary to hide in your attic?"
A lengthy silence followed. Then the witness
resumed his anti-Serb rhetoric
of fighting for a modern civilisation
against the darkness of the Serbs. At
no point did Judge May direct the witness to
answer the question or attempt
to stop the racist language being used by Mr
Yemeni.
Mr M. "All right. When the Security Forces
were in your village what was
the atmosphere like?"
Mr Y. "It was frightening. The Serbs were
firing their guns into the air
all the time and shouting and screaming at
the civilians. They were like
wild men."
Mr M. "So above this frightening noise,
above the firing of guns, above the
shouts and the screams you were able, even
from, as you insist, fifteen
metres away, you were able to hear telephone
conversations?"
Mr Y. "We represent a modern civilisation,
that's what intellectuals like
myself are fighting for."
Mr. Milosevic repeated the question.
Judge May. "Have you many more questions for
this witness Mr Milosevic?"
Mr M. "I have about forty more questions."
Judge May. "Well I am giving you ten more
minutes with this witness."
Mr M. "That just shows the bias of this
court as I have said previously."
Turning to the prosecution witness Mr
Milosevic continued.
Mr M. "From what position did you observe
the killing of the civilians?"
Mr Y. "From my attic window."
Mr M. "All the killings took place outside
your attic window?"
Mr Y. "I can observe all the town from my
attic. I can move around."
Mr M. "So with all this killing going on you
felt secure enough, just
fifteen metres away from the Security
forces, to be able to move around
your attic?"
Mr Y. "With all the noise no one could hear
me so I was secure."
Mr M. "So the noise was so great that the
Security forces could not hear
you moving around, but the noise wasn't loud
enough to prevent you from
listening to a telephone conversation at
least fifteen metres away from
your position. Is that right or not?"
Judge May. "Your time is up Mr Milosevic. Mr
Yemeni, I would like to thank
you for coming to give evidence to the
International Tribunal and you are
now free to go."
THE SCALES OF JUSTICE
As I perused Courtroom One with its judges,
lawyers, secretaries and legal
clerks, I realised that these people,
working for this particular Tribunal,
had sold their dignity and the dignity of
their profession to the New World
Order.
The essence of this Tribunal is summed up
perfectly by lawyer Christopher
Black:
"No citizen of any country in the world
would consider themselves fairly
tried before a court that was paid for,
staffed and assisted by private
citizens or corporations which had a direct
stake in the outcome of the
trial and who were, themselves, in practical
terms, immune from that court.
It is a well established principle of law
that a party in a legal action,
whether civil or criminal, is entitled to
ask for the removal of any judge
sitting on the case when there exists a
reasonable apprehension of bias. In
this instance, a compelling argument can be
made that the bias is not only
apprehended, it is real, that it is not of
one judge but of the entire
tribunal, that this is not a judicial body
worthy of international respect
but a kangaroo court, a bogus court, with a
political purpose serving very
powerful and identifiable masters. To be
consistent with my thesis I will
go further and say that as a political
instrument designed to violate, to
destroy the integrity and sovereignty of a
country, its creation is a crime
against peace under the Nuremberg
Principles. Instead of resolving conflict
as it claims, it is used to justify
conflict, instead of creating peace, it
is used to justify war and therefore is an
instrument of war."
During the trial session of Friday 7th June
Mr. Milosevic complained to the
court that he had not as yet received a copy
of the statement made by
William Walker, head of the OSCE and a vital
prosecution witness. Mr Walker
was due in court the following Monday. Judge
May said he would look into
this.
The prosecution has been preparing their
case for years, their witnesses
are well rehearsed, hearsay evidence is
accepted, as is secret testimony,
and cross-examination time is restricted.
Yet, as if that wasn't enough,
witness statements are withheld from the
accused until a few hours
beforehand, giving little time for the
defence to prepare the
cross-examination.
Add to this the physical and psychological
conditions that Mr Milosevic and
other Yugoslav prisoners are subject to.
They are treated as if they have
already been convicted, being kept in cells
and under constant
surveillance, having their mail censored,
family visits restricted, any
communication with their families to be at
their own expense, and
restrictions on what they can see or hear on
radio or television.
And, especially in the case of Mr Milosevic,
a refusal to allow him to meet
with the legal advisors of his choice.
Several prisoners have already died
while in custody and to the shame of
organisations such as Amnesty
International, no investigation into these
deaths has been forthcoming.
Despite all this Mr Milosevic is bravely
using the Tribunal as his
battleground to defend his people and his
country and expose the real
culprits for the wars and break-up of the
Balkans, Nato and the
International Monetary Fund. He stated his
position very clearly in his
11th December 2001 pre-trial appearance: "I
can tell you that I am proud
that I commanded the armed forces of
Yugoslavia..I am here as a punishment
for standing up against the danger of the
biggest tyranny that has
threatened mankind."
The Milosevic trial is expected to last two
years, yet no matter how long a
trial takes, no matter how many
well-rehearsed prosecution witnesses are
wheeled in, if the outcome is predetermined,
then it is a show trial.
The resistance shown by the former President
of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, against overwhelming odds,
should serve as encouragement to all
those who oppose the wars, poverty and
suffering inherent in the creation
of a New World Order.
Ian Johnson June 2002
Mr. Johnson can be reached by email at
***
Join our email list at
http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Receive articles posted on Emperor's
Clothes.
Click here to email the link to this article
to a friend.
Further Reading:
1) In 'The Other Side of the Story', two
retired Yugoslav Army generals
refute the charges against Slobodan
Milosevic and other Yugoslav leaders
point-by-point. Their sources include
Yugoslav Army documents never before
available. The original source material and
reasoning refutes the
'tribunal' indictments and at the same time
the narrative is informative,
interesting and hard to put down. You can
download the entire book at
http://www.icdsm.org/more/book.htm
Or load one chapter at a time, starting with
Chapter One at
http://emperors-clothes.com/book/book1.htm
2) "An Impartial Tribunal? Really?" by
Christopher Black. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/Impartial.htm
3) 'Unjust from the Start, Part IV: Learning
from the Inquisition,' by
Yugoslav law professor Kosta Cavoski is part
of his series on The Hague
'tribunal.' It can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-4.htm
Prof. Cavoski's series is a good
introduction to The Hague 'tribunal.' You
could begin with Part I, "Unjust from the
Start: The War Crimes Tribunal
vs. General Djordje Djukic," at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-1.htm
4) Attorney John Philpot wrote in asking if
there was documentation of the
charge that Hague Prosecutor Arbour
conferred with Western regimes before
indicting Pres. Milosevic. Read his letter,
and the documentation at
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/philpot.htm
5) In 'For Whom the Bell Tolls,' editor
Jared Israel warns that the
injustice at The Hague is a communicable
disease...Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/tolls.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/ian/day.htm
=======================================
THE JUDGE AS PROSECUTOR: TWO DAYS AT THE
"TRIAL" OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
By Ian Johnson
Leigh, Lancashire * UK
[Posted 19 June 2002]
NOTE: For audio of 'trial' go to
http://hague.bard.edu/video.html
For transcripts, go to
http://www.un.org/icty/latest/index.htm
=======================================
Introduction: Ian Johnson recounts an
incident that occurred while he was
attending the Milosevic 'trial' at The Hague
on June 7th:
"During the morning break I met a young
Dutch lad in the lobby. He was
studying medicine in Vienna but was staying
for the summer with his
grandfather in Holland. He was curious about
the Milosevic case. Of course
he couldn't find it on the television. So
he'd come over to watch with his
own eyes. He saw me taking notes and
approached me. He wanted to see if I
was thinking what he was thinking. His
English was excellent. He said, "I
don't know that much about the issues, but
anyone can see this isn't a
proper trial, is it? The Judge is totally
against him. In fact he's openly
contemptuous of Mr. Milosevic, isn't he?
What's going on here?"
I work as a paralegal in the UK. So for me,
the perversion of justice I had
just witnessed - and with a British judge
presiding! - was infuriating. But
here was this young Dutch lad, not in the
legal profession or involved in
defending Mr. Milosevic at all, but a
thinking person, and he was horrified
as well. He wanted to know why his country
was supporting such a travesty.
This is why they have stopped showing the
proceedings on television.
Because the people, and especially the young
people, wouldn't stand for it,
would they?"
Here is Ian Johnson's account of:
TWO DAYS AT THE "TRIAL" OF SLOBODAN
MILOSEVIC
To spend one day at The Hague Tribunal is
enough to confirm the worst of
suspicions. What is actually taking place in
the heart of 'democratic'
Europe is a show-trial so blatant, so
lacking in legality, that it brings
shame to those who are participating in it
and to those who refuse to
challenge it.
The history of the Tribunal's formation and
funding is well documented.
Originally an idea that emanated from the
United States Department of the
Army, it was brought into being via the UN
Security Council in its
Resolutions 808 and 827 of 1993. Not only
was this act legally invalid,
being that the Security Council had no
authority in judicial matters to
establish such a Tribunal, but its creation
also involved a
reinterpretation of the UN Charter.
Canadian lawyer Christopher Black observed
the following:
"...the UN is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of its
members, a fundamental principle of
international law and the first
guarantee of the right to self-determination
of the world's peoples. If a
people do not have the right of sovereignty,
the right to
self-determination is a sham. This principle
is completely denied by the
creation of the Tribunal. The UN Charter
states that nothing contained in
the Charter shall authorise the UN to
intervene in matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction
of any state. This fundamental
principle, put in the Charter so that the UN
could not be used by some
members to bully others has also been
fatally undermined by the creation of
the Tribunal. The members of the Security
Council, more precisely, the
permanent members, now hold the opposite
position, and I submit, do so for
reasons connected more with imperialism not
humanitarianism." (1)
The Tribunal's funding exposes its political
character. Much of it comes
from the US government through cash and
equipment, with other notable
contributors being the Rockefeller family,
Time-Warner, who own CNN and
have exclusive rights to broadcast the
trial, and American billionaire
financier George Soros. The Soros connection
is significant. The Coalition
for International Justice (CIJ), founded and
funded by George Soros,
supplies many of the Tribunal's legal staff.
The George Soros foundation,
the Open Society Institute, is one of the
parties that obtain evidence for
the Tribunal, and most tellingly, the Open
Society Institute funds the main
KLA newspaper in Pristina, a fact that has
not been mentioned once by the
western media.
POLITICAL BIAS IN ACTION
Even if one had no knowledge of the
Tribunal's history, a brief visit to
Courtroom One of the Hague Tribunal to
witness the trial of Slobodan
Milosevic would immediately give cause for
concern.
Unlike the practice in criminal courts The
Hague court itself is involved
in the laying of charges and the approval of
one of the trial judges must
be obtained before a charge can be laid.
This extraordinary relationship between the
prosecution and judges
undermines the right of the accused to a
presumption of innocence.
Furthermore this close relationship can be
witnessed in the day to day
proceedings at The Hague.
I visited the Tribunal during the first week
of June 2002 and can bear
witness to the various ways this hand in
glove operation of prosecutor and
judge appears in practice.
I heard the testimony of several prosecution
witnesses during the sessions
I attended.
Each witness gave their, sometimes lengthy,
statements that were then
elaborated on by the prosecution and on
occasions involved photographs and
maps. At no time during this process did the
judge, Richard May, stipulate
a time limit on the prosecution. Yet when it
was the turn of Mr Milosevic
to cross-examine the witness, Judge May
would instruct that a time limit be
put on proceedings. At one point, in
response to protests from Mr
Milosevic, Judge May arrogantly proclaimed,
"We are the judges Mr Milosevic
and we have judged that you will have
forty-five minutes to cross-examine
this witness." (7th June 2002).
Basically a cross-examination should take as
long as it takes, be it ten
minutes or ten hours, especially as the
accused is facing the gravest
charges any human being can face. But in the
peculiar rules and procedures
of this particular court, the trial judges
will ensure that this is not the
case.
Additionally, the Tribunal has been given
the absolute authority to devise
its own rules and procedures, an unheard of
situation in any other
circumstance.
When we come to the way the judges attempt
to 'protect' the prosecution
witnesses from any piercing
cross-examination of their statements the
full
political bias of the court is revealed. I
understand from other reports
that this is a daily occurrence, however I
will limit myself here to what I
personally witnessed.
On the 6th June prosecution witness Mr Buyo,
a KLA commander in the Racak
zone during 1999, in his testimony relating
to events surrounding the
alleged Racak 'massacre', initially claimed
that Serbian security forces
had opened fire first.
However, later in his testimony when
explaining the KLA's actions, he
testified that his own forces had merely
fired warning shots into the air
so as to alert their colleagues of the
approaching Serb forces.
Mr Milosevic seized on this discrepancy and
pointedly asked the witness,
"Why, if it was true that the Serbian
security forces had fired first, was
it necessary to fire warning shots into the
air?" A quite reasonable
assumption one would have thought. If you
are under attack there is no need
for any colleague of yours to fire shots in
the air warning you of an
approaching enemy.
Mr Milosevic attempted to drive home the
significance of this discrepancy
at which point, with the witness clearly in
trouble, Judge May intervened
and instructed, "Move on Mr Milosevic, you
have laboured this point enough.
Go on to another question." Mr Buyo was off
the hook.
A further witness, who admitted his brother
was a member of the KLA,
claimed he was an eyewitness to a 'massacre'
of civilians in his village
near Bela Crkva
He testified that Serb forces had entered
his peaceful village, separated
the women and children from the men and
proceeded to execute seventy men,
women and children.
In his cross-examination (time limit
imposed) Mr Milosevic asked why, if
they killed seventy men, women and children
so indiscriminately, would they
bother separating them in the first place?
After a lengthy silence from the
witness Judge May interjected, "I don't
think you can expect the witness to
know that."
The witness's credibility was further
undermined when he denied any
knowledge of the KLA kidnapping of both Serb
and Albanian residents in his
village just a few weeks earlier, claiming
he must have been away at the
time and upon his return no villagers
mentioned it to him. Up to that date
the kidnapping was the biggest event to
occur in his village for years,
yet, as a life long resident there, he had
never even heard about it.
Proceedings were taking a predictable
course. It didn't take much insight
to grasp the following: A) The witnesses
told a well-rehearsed story. B) If
the witnesses got into difficulties during
the cross-examination the Judge
would intervene.
INADEQUATE WHEN CHALLENGED
This observation was further confirmed with
the appearance of one Mr Ian
Robert Hendrie, a member of the London
Metropolitan Police who had been
seconded to the OSCE and was part of the
verification mission in Racak
headed by William Walker.
Mr Hendrie told of his observations while he
was touring the Racak
'massacre' site, using several photographs
that he had taken personally.
Under cross-examination, when asked if he
toured the site alone or if
somebody had showed him around, he replied
that the latter was the case.
"Who showed you around the site?" enquired
Mr Milosevic. "I don't know,"
was the astonishing response.
Here was a member of the verification team
who could not verify who it was
that told him about the 'massacre' and
showed him the supposed evidence.
But apparently Mr. Hendrie's testimony,
dependent as it was on a guide and
translator whom he could not identify, was
neverthless acceptable, because
Judge May impatiently instructed Mr.
Milosevic to move on to another
question.
However the other questions got Mr Hendrie
into deeper trouble. He could
not explain why his photographs showed only
patches of blood and not pools
as would be expected. Nor could he explain
why no person's blood had
spilled onto another person's body, which it
was logical to assume would
have been the case if all these bodies,
densely packed together, had been
killed simultaneously at this one specific
place.
Enter Judge May. "The witness is not a
forensic expert and cannot be
expected to know these things." In other
words, Mr. Hendrie's expertise had
a dual nature. It was sufficient when he was
testifying against Mr.
Milosevic, but woefully inadequate when he
was challenged.
Comments such as this, which pepper the
trial every day, might be expected
from the prosecution, but from a supposedly
neutral trial Judge?
When asked by the defendant if he had ever
heard of the 'paraffin test', (a
test which can determine if a person had
recently handled a firearm), Mr
Hendrie didn't answer but left it to Judge
May to announce that, "This test
has been discredited" to which Mr Milosevic
added with a touch of sarcasm
"But only in the USA, not in Yugoslavia."
Mr Yemeni was the last prosecution witness I
observed during my June visit.
In his statement he claimed to have
witnessed the killing of civilians in
his village in Kosovo. He claimed he was
hiding in his attic from where he
supposedly witnessed the 'killings' and also
overheard Yugoslav commanders
communicating on mobile phones and comparing
the number of dead with the
number of dead at Racak. Mr Yemeni, at the
age of twenty-four, was Mayor of
his village.
Below I paraphrase excerpts of the
cross-examination:
Mr Milosevic. "Are you a member of the KLA?"
Mr Yemeni. "No."
Mr M. "Are you a member of any political
party?"
Mr Y. "Yes"
Me M. "What is your party called?"
Mr Y. "The Democratic Party"
Mr M. "Who is the leader of your party?"
Mr Y. "Mr. Thaci." [Mr Thaci was a leader of
the KLA in 1999]. ***
Mr M. "When did you join this party?"
Mr Y. "I don't know."
Mr M. "You don't know when you joined? All
right. Approximately when did
you join?"
Mr Y. " I don't know"
Judge May. "Mr Milosevic, move on, it is not
relevant when he joined the
party."
Mr M. "It is very relevant. However. How is
it that you were Mayor of your
village at such a young age? This is very
unusual."
Mr Y. " I was Mayor because I represent
modern civilisation, unlike the
backward Serbs. Modern civilisation that we
are now building in Kosovo
needs leaders like myself to take them out
of the backwardness that Serbs
kept them in. We are building a civilisation
that is modern and we need
intelligent people like me."
Judge May allowed this racist diatribe to go
on without comment.
Mr M. "I didn't know I was talking to an
intellectual. However, let me ask
you about the conversations that you say you
overheard between commanders.
Where were you when you overheard these
conversations?"
Mr Y "Hiding in the attic of my house."
Mr M. "And what was the position of the
soldiers who were using their
phones?"
Mr Y. "On the balcony of a house facing my
attic window."
Mr M. "Which is how far away?"
Mr Y. "Fifteen metres."
Mr Milosevic holds up a photograph for the
witness that shows the houses in
question.
Mr M. "As you can see there is no balcony
facing your attic. And the
nearest house is more like fifty metres
away. Is that right or not?"
Mr Y. "No."
Judge May. "Move on Mr. Milosevic. The
witness has told you his position."
Mr M. "Very well. As there were no KLA in
your village, as you say, and
therefore the villagers saw no reason to
flee, as you say in your
statement, why then did you feel it
necessary to hide in your attic?"
A lengthy silence followed. Then the witness
resumed his anti-Serb rhetoric
of fighting for a modern civilisation
against the darkness of the Serbs. At
no point did Judge May direct the witness to
answer the question or attempt
to stop the racist language being used by Mr
Yemeni.
Mr M. "All right. When the Security Forces
were in your village what was
the atmosphere like?"
Mr Y. "It was frightening. The Serbs were
firing their guns into the air
all the time and shouting and screaming at
the civilians. They were like
wild men."
Mr M. "So above this frightening noise,
above the firing of guns, above the
shouts and the screams you were able, even
from, as you insist, fifteen
metres away, you were able to hear telephone
conversations?"
Mr Y. "We represent a modern civilisation,
that's what intellectuals like
myself are fighting for."
Mr. Milosevic repeated the question.
Judge May. "Have you many more questions for
this witness Mr Milosevic?"
Mr M. "I have about forty more questions."
Judge May. "Well I am giving you ten more
minutes with this witness."
Mr M. "That just shows the bias of this
court as I have said previously."
Turning to the prosecution witness Mr
Milosevic continued.
Mr M. "From what position did you observe
the killing of the civilians?"
Mr Y. "From my attic window."
Mr M. "All the killings took place outside
your attic window?"
Mr Y. "I can observe all the town from my
attic. I can move around."
Mr M. "So with all this killing going on you
felt secure enough, just
fifteen metres away from the Security
forces, to be able to move around
your attic?"
Mr Y. "With all the noise no one could hear
me so I was secure."
Mr M. "So the noise was so great that the
Security forces could not hear
you moving around, but the noise wasn't loud
enough to prevent you from
listening to a telephone conversation at
least fifteen metres away from
your position. Is that right or not?"
Judge May. "Your time is up Mr Milosevic. Mr
Yemeni, I would like to thank
you for coming to give evidence to the
International Tribunal and you are
now free to go."
THE SCALES OF JUSTICE
As I perused Courtroom One with its judges,
lawyers, secretaries and legal
clerks, I realised that these people,
working for this particular Tribunal,
had sold their dignity and the dignity of
their profession to the New World
Order.
The essence of this Tribunal is summed up
perfectly by lawyer Christopher
Black:
"No citizen of any country in the world
would consider themselves fairly
tried before a court that was paid for,
staffed and assisted by private
citizens or corporations which had a direct
stake in the outcome of the
trial and who were, themselves, in practical
terms, immune from that court.
It is a well established principle of law
that a party in a legal action,
whether civil or criminal, is entitled to
ask for the removal of any judge
sitting on the case when there exists a
reasonable apprehension of bias. In
this instance, a compelling argument can be
made that the bias is not only
apprehended, it is real, that it is not of
one judge but of the entire
tribunal, that this is not a judicial body
worthy of international respect
but a kangaroo court, a bogus court, with a
political purpose serving very
powerful and identifiable masters. To be
consistent with my thesis I will
go further and say that as a political
instrument designed to violate, to
destroy the integrity and sovereignty of a
country, its creation is a crime
against peace under the Nuremberg
Principles. Instead of resolving conflict
as it claims, it is used to justify
conflict, instead of creating peace, it
is used to justify war and therefore is an
instrument of war."
During the trial session of Friday 7th June
Mr. Milosevic complained to the
court that he had not as yet received a copy
of the statement made by
William Walker, head of the OSCE and a vital
prosecution witness. Mr Walker
was due in court the following Monday. Judge
May said he would look into
this.
The prosecution has been preparing their
case for years, their witnesses
are well rehearsed, hearsay evidence is
accepted, as is secret testimony,
and cross-examination time is restricted.
Yet, as if that wasn't enough,
witness statements are withheld from the
accused until a few hours
beforehand, giving little time for the
defence to prepare the
cross-examination.
Add to this the physical and psychological
conditions that Mr Milosevic and
other Yugoslav prisoners are subject to.
They are treated as if they have
already been convicted, being kept in cells
and under constant
surveillance, having their mail censored,
family visits restricted, any
communication with their families to be at
their own expense, and
restrictions on what they can see or hear on
radio or television.
And, especially in the case of Mr Milosevic,
a refusal to allow him to meet
with the legal advisors of his choice.
Several prisoners have already died
while in custody and to the shame of
organisations such as Amnesty
International, no investigation into these
deaths has been forthcoming.
Despite all this Mr Milosevic is bravely
using the Tribunal as his
battleground to defend his people and his
country and expose the real
culprits for the wars and break-up of the
Balkans, Nato and the
International Monetary Fund. He stated his
position very clearly in his
11th December 2001 pre-trial appearance: "I
can tell you that I am proud
that I commanded the armed forces of
Yugoslavia..I am here as a punishment
for standing up against the danger of the
biggest tyranny that has
threatened mankind."
The Milosevic trial is expected to last two
years, yet no matter how long a
trial takes, no matter how many
well-rehearsed prosecution witnesses are
wheeled in, if the outcome is predetermined,
then it is a show trial.
The resistance shown by the former President
of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, against overwhelming odds,
should serve as encouragement to all
those who oppose the wars, poverty and
suffering inherent in the creation
of a New World Order.
Ian Johnson June 2002
Mr. Johnson can be reached by email at
***
Join our email list at
http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Receive articles posted on Emperor's
Clothes.
Click here to email the link to this article
to a friend.
Further Reading:
1) In 'The Other Side of the Story', two
retired Yugoslav Army generals
refute the charges against Slobodan
Milosevic and other Yugoslav leaders
point-by-point. Their sources include
Yugoslav Army documents never before
available. The original source material and
reasoning refutes the
'tribunal' indictments and at the same time
the narrative is informative,
interesting and hard to put down. You can
download the entire book at
http://www.icdsm.org/more/book.htm
Or load one chapter at a time, starting with
Chapter One at
http://emperors-clothes.com/book/book1.htm
2) "An Impartial Tribunal? Really?" by
Christopher Black. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/Impartial.htm
3) 'Unjust from the Start, Part IV: Learning
from the Inquisition,' by
Yugoslav law professor Kosta Cavoski is part
of his series on The Hague
'tribunal.' It can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-4.htm
Prof. Cavoski's series is a good
introduction to The Hague 'tribunal.' You
could begin with Part I, "Unjust from the
Start: The War Crimes Tribunal
vs. General Djordje Djukic," at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-1.htm
4) Attorney John Philpot wrote in asking if
there was documentation of the
charge that Hague Prosecutor Arbour
conferred with Western regimes before
indicting Pres. Milosevic. Read his letter,
and the documentation at
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/philpot.htm
5) In 'For Whom the Bell Tolls,' editor
Jared Israel warns that the
injustice at The Hague is a communicable
disease...Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/tolls.htm