http://www.antiwar.com/orig/savich1.html

ANTIWAR


Dead Babies
Lynching or Justice? The Trial of the Century: Kosovo
Phase Analysis

by Carl Savich
October 22, 2002

Dead Babies and Baby Killers

Witness K41: "The people who were in the houses were
expelled. They were forced out into the yard.There was a
gun placed to each of their heads.I think there were
about 15 people there. There were women there too,
children. I remember at least one child that I saw."

Prosecutor Dirk Rynevald: "Were there any babies? ."

Witness K41: "Yes.There was at least one baby. It might
have been - well, not even a year old. A soldier checked
to see if they had any money. The rest of the soldiers
started to leave the yard, and the four of us, or five
of us, remained. And our sergeant, Sergeant Kozlina,
ordered us to shoot the people who were in the yard. The
people who were shot at began falling down one across
the other, one over the other, and what I remember most
vividly is how - I remember this very vividly. There was
a baby, and it had been shot with three bullets, and it
was screaming unbelievably loud..

Never a night goes by without my dreaming about that
child."

Is this a scene from yet another Hollywood Holocaust
movie? Is it from Schindler's List? Is this the Racak
Massacre Hoax, an example of Propaganda of the Deed? Is
this the massacre at Babi Yar during World War II? Is
this "testimony" from the Iraqi Baby Incubator Hoax that
Tom Lantos manufactured and concocted/orchestrated to
foment war against Iraq? In 1990, Iraqi troops were
alleged to have turned off incubators and allowed
Kuwaiti babies to die. There were dead babies. The Iraqi
troops were baby killers. Is this the testimony of Hun
atrocities in Belgium in 1914 during World War I? German
troops were alleged to have carried dead babies on
bayonets and to have cut off the arms of Belgian
children, dismembering a baby.

This was the testimony of Witness K41 at the ICTY
"international trial of the century" of former Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic, at the session held on
Friday, September 6, 2002. The testimony by K41 bears a
striking resemblance and similarity to the "Hun
atrocities" alleged to have been committed in Belgium in
August, 1914 and to the Iraqi Incubator Hoax of the 1991
Persian Gulf War.

British and French government/media propaganda accused
German troops of the mass rape of Belgian girls in
public in Liege. German troops were accused of
mutilating the breasts of a Belgian girl. The classic
propaganda image of the Allied propaganda against
Germany was the dead Belgian baby on a bayonet. German
troops, eight in number, were accused of bayoneting a
two-year-old Belgian baby. The London Times published
the news dispatch of an eyewitness account of German
atrocities against Belgian babies. A man was quoted as
stating that he witnessed "with his own eyes German
soldiery chop off the arms of a baby which clung to its
mother's skirts." The French propaganda office even
manufactured a photograph of the "handless baby" which
on September 18, 1915 was published in the French
newspaper La Rive Rouge. The French media included a
drawing that showed German troops eating the hands of
the dead baby. A Belgian commission of inquiry in 1922,
however, failed to find any evidence whatsoever for any
of these alleged atrocities. But that is irrelevant.

The truth of the allegations is irrelevant in
propaganda. What is important is that the dead babies
propaganda was successful on the propaganda front. For
Britain and France, the dead babies propaganda rallied
domestic public opinion against Germany. The truth of
the allegations is irrelevant and immaterial. The goal
was to create public opinion on the home front to create
support for a continuation of the war, to manufacture
racist/national/ethnic fervor, to instill war frenzy and
to lessen the antipathy towards killing. The Belgian
atrocity propaganda was also used to create public
support in the US for a declaration of war against
Germany. As John MacArthur noted, "slaughtered and
mutilated Belgian babies were a tremendous propaganda
triumph for the Allies."

Dead babies propaganda would be used again in the Iraqi
Persian Gulf War in 1991. Propaganda techniques do not
change. Wars and "dictators" and "butchers" come and go,
but propaganda techniques do not. Why is this so?
Propaganda appeals to fundamental, universal impulses of
man. Propaganda relies on archetypes of the human mental
psyche, primordial psychological processes and
mechanisms of the mind. There are archetypical motifs,
paradigms, stereotypes that are unchanging. This is why
massacres, atrocities, the mass rape of women and the
killing of babies remains an unchanging propaganda
technique from the 1914 Belgian atrocities to the 2002
ICTY "international trial of the century" of Slobodan
Milosevic. The mass rape propaganda technique was
revived during the Bosnian civil war while the dead
babies propaganda was used again in the Iraqi War of
1991 and the Milosevic trial of 2002. You go with what
works. And if it works, why change it? Why fix it if it
ain't broken?

The ICTY dead babies propaganda is analogous to the
Jewish Ritual Murder allegations or "blood libels" in
European history. In medieval Europe, anti-Jewish and
anti-Semitic racism and racist paranoia was induced by
manufacturing allegations that Jews abducted Christian
babies and then killed them in sacrificial religious
blood rites. Jews require the blood of Christian babies
for the Passover rite or ritual. Every year Jews abduct
a Christian baby, torture and crucify the baby, pierce
its side, perform a circumcision, then they kill the
Christian baby and dispose of the body. The Jewish
ritual murder of Christian babies charge first emerged
in England. Thomas of Monmouth published an account of
St. William of Norwich in 1173. William was alleged to
have been the victim of a Jewish ritual murder committed
in Norwich in 1144 by a converted Jew, Theobald. William
was tortured, circumcised, and his side was pierced in a
mock crucifixion. Anti-Jewish propaganda and paranoia
would eventually result in the expulsion from England of
all Jews by King Edward. In 1171, Jews of Blois, France,
were accused of crucifying a French Christian baby
during Passover as a ritualistic yearly murder. Jews
then threw the dead baby into the Loise river. There was
a dead baby. Jews were baby killers. That was the
message. That was the image. The association was with
dead Christian babies and Jews. Similarly, anti-Gypsy
racism and bigotry is based on the allegation that
wandering Gypsies kidnap helpless and defenseless babies
who are subsequently murdered. The dead baby propaganda
of the ICTY prosecutors makes use of the same
psychological or psychic mechanisms and responses of the
human brain. The dead babies allegations legitimize
racial and religious hatred and suspicion and in the
case of the Kosovo conflict, "revenge killings" of
Serbian children due to the "repression" and
"oppression" of the "ethnic Albanians". K41 was used to
show that the Yugoslav/Serbian Army was made up of baby
killers. Slobodan Milosevic was a baby killer. By
implication, every Serbian Orthodox is a baby killer.
This should insult our intelligence and human dignity.
But the ICTY prosecution is appealing to our emotions,
our feelings. Don't think, just feel. Focus on the
image. The image is everything. Just take in the image
of a dead Albanian baby being shot with three bullets
and screaming. Do you feel guilty now? Do you feel
remorse? Well, do you? Do you still want to be a Serb
now? Feel. Do not think. How many times have we heard
this before?

During the Iraqi conflict, Iraqi troops were accused of
removing 312 babies from incubators and placing them on
the hospital floors to die in Kuwait City. The London
Telegraph of September 5, 1990 reported that "babies in
the premature unit of one hospital had been removed from
their incubators so that these, too, could be carried
off." Two days later, the Los Angeles Times carried a
Reuters news dispatch which reported: "Iraqis are
beating people.taking hospital equipment, babies out of
incubators. Life-support systems are turned off.The
Iraqis are beating Kuwaitis.cutting their ears off if
they are caught resisting." MacArthur noted that "of all
the accusations made against the dictator, none had more
impact on American public opinion" than the dead babies
propaganda. The dead babies propaganda was manufactured
by the US government. President George Bush used the
dead babies propaganda is calling for a war against Iraq
in 1991. The US government colluded with the media and
PR firms to manufacture the hoax. Tom Lantos
orchestrated the presentation of bogus "testimony" to
substantiate the dead babies accusation. Lantos
presented "Nayirah" who would testify about witnessing
the murder of innocent Kuwaiti babies. Nayirah testified
before the Human Rights Caucus as follows:

I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital.While I was
there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital
with guns, and go into the room where 15 babies were in
incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators,
took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold
floor to die.

Voila! Dead babies! Of course, the later investigations
proved the Kuwaiti baby incubator story was a
manufactured hoax, manufactured and orchestrated by the
US Government, the Hill & Knowlton PR firm, the US
media, and Tom Lantos. Why did Lantos not reveal her
last name? Nayirah was actually Nayirah al-Sabah, the
daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US. It was all
a phony propaganda stunt orchestrated and staged by the
US Government. It was a hoax and a sham. But it worked.
And therefore it is to be imitated and repeated. That is
why we see its reappearance at the "trial of the
century" of Slobodan Milosevic. What is the lesson here?
What is the moral? In the New World Order, all we are
concerned with is results. If it works, it is good. If
it does not work, it is bad. This is the morality and
ethics of the New World Order. This is the ethos of the
era. Selling. But you cannot have economic expansion and
exploitation without first having military and political
exploitation. It is all about selling. We want to build
more McDonald's restaurants. We want to build Kentucky
Fried Chicken franchises globally. The goal is to expand
markets. The avatars of the New World Order are the Big
Mac and the soft-drink Coca-Cola and affordable PCs.
Selling. Get used to it. Because we will see it repeated
ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

Why use dead babies propaganda? Dead babies propaganda
is highly effective as Western propagandists have
learned since the 1914 Belgian atrocity hoax following
the German occupation of Belgium in August, 1914. But
attempting to portray the Serbian Orthodox as baby
killers is an act of desperation and a sign of utter
weakness by the prosecutors at the ICTY. Dead babies
propaganda is a last resort. Its use demonstrates moral
and ethical bankruptcy and total disregard for human
rights, for humanity, humanitas. Why did the ICTY use
it? The ICTY could find no evidence of genocide in
Kosovo, no evidence of war crimes, no evidence of a plan
or conspiracy by Slobodan Milosevic to deport or
ethnically cleanse Albanians, no evidence of crimes
against humanity. The ICTY learned that the Milosevic
regime was engaged in a legal and legitimate state
action to prevent infiltration/invasion of armed
terrorist groups from Albania, the "mother country", a
terrorist army that sought to create an ethnically pure
Greater Albania that would encompass "Kosova",
Kosovo-Metohija, and "Illirida", western Macedonia.
Indeed, events in "Kosova" following the NATO bombing
showed that this was the actual goal all along.

Dead babies propaganda is a textbook example of the
Atrocity Technique or Atrocity Appeal in propaganda.
Atrocity propaganda was the US/NATO technique used
during the Bosnian Civil War to mobilize public opinion
against the Bosnian Serb faction. How was this done? The
US/NATO/ media relied on atrocity propaganda. The
Bosnian Serb forces massacred Bosnian Muslims and Croat
civilians, engaged in a systematic policy of mass rape
as an instrument of war, established "rape camps" or
"rape motels", set up concentration camps to intern
Bosnian Muslim and Croat civilians. The US
government/media concocted the Markale Massacre I and
Markale Massacre II, the Sarajevo Breadline Massacre,
and the Srebrenica Massacre. Why did the US
government/media do this? This was done to create
anti-Serbian public opinion so that the groundwork could
be established for war against the Serbian faction. The
ultimate aim of all propaganda is to enable or to
justify the killing of the "enemy".

Dead babies propaganda is meant to camouflage or
obscure/obfuscate the fact that the ICTY has failed to
prove or establish any part of its case against Slobodan
Milosevic. A focus on dead babies is termed an appeal to
the emotions, Affective Appeal in propaganda analysis.
In other words, it as an appeal to emotion, not to
reasoning, not the intellect. The goal is to bypass
reason. Atrocity propaganda in fact is meant to preclude
or prevent thought. Don't think, don't use your brain,
the ICTY prosecutors are saying, but let your emotions
control you. Here is a dead Albanian baby that Yugoslav
troops have killed. You must emote, you must feel. Guilt
and contrition are the objectives here. The Milosevic
trial is aimed primarily at the Serbian population. That
is why there is a virtual news black-out in the US. The
"trial of the century" is meant for Serbia. Ironically,
Pravda exposed the Milosevic trial as "The Lie of the
Century." It is a waste of time for Americans. The trial
is meant to discredit Serbia and the Serbian people, the
Orthodox. This was noted concisely in a Houston
Chronicle article of February 26, 2002: "Truth is,
Serbia's on trial along with Milosevic." This is why
Sylvia Poggioli of NPR interviews citizens of Belgrade
and not in New York or Washington, DC. The trial is
meant to vindicate or justify the NATO bombing and the
anti-Serbian Orthodox propaganda. Common sense tells us
the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia violated the UN Charter
and all rules, customs, and agreements of international
law. The unprovoked NATO bombing, invasion, and
occupation of Serbia/Yugoslavia violated basic
principles of sovereignty. The only way NATO could sell
the war was by propaganda, by manufacturing an
imperative for intervention based on genocide. But there
was no genocide. Thus the need to justify the illegal
NATO aggressive war against a UN state, Yugoslavia. The
trial is meant to justify and vindicate what cannot be
justified and vindicated. Thus there is a mindless and
inexplicable appeal to emotion. Don't think. Feel.

Why appeal to emotion? We cannot control our emotions.
Emotion is spontaneous and based on our subconscious and
operates at the subliminal level. Is this propaganda
technique new or original? Adolf Hitler examined and
discussed this propaganda technique in Mein Kampf in
1924. Hitler wrote that atrocity propaganda, dead babies
propaganda, appeals to the emotion, and not the
intellect:

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the
emotional ideas of the masses and finding, through a
psychologically correct form, the way to the attention
and thence to the heart of the masses.The purpose of
propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for
blasé young gentlemen, but to convince, and what I mean
is to convince the masses.Its effect for the most part
must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited
degree at the so-called intellect.Sober reasoning
determines the people's thoughts and actions far less
than emotion and feeling.

As Hitler understood, propaganda is illogical and based
not on reason, but on emotion and feeling. This is why
the ICTY prosecution used the dead babies propaganda
which is illogical, absurd, and factually unconvincing.
But emotionally the dead babies propaganda is effective
because its appeal is to the emotions, which are
involuntary and reflexive and which are sensory in
nature.

How did the media report on this testimony of the
alleged killing of a baby? Ian Black in The Guardian
Unlimited for September 6, 2002 had this headline:
"Milosevic's army shot baby in village massacre". As the
ICTY prosecutors planned, the media focused on the dead
baby, the dead babies propaganda, the baby killers
propaganda. "We shot a little baby three times: soldiers
tell" was the headline in the Sun-Herald on September 8,
2002. This article even falsifies/manipulates the
testimony by adding the superfluous redundancy "little"
to describe the dead baby. K41 never used the adjective
"little". Isn't a baby always "little"? Media overkill?
Propaganda? The propaganda, nevertheless, worked as the
ICTY prosecution knew it would. Never mind that legally
their case against Milosevic was a total failure and
fiasco and amounted to a show or witch-hunt trial or
political trial masterminded by the US/NATO. Never mind
that legally the dead babies propaganda had achieved
absolutely nothing, had shown or proven nothing. That
was irrelevant. Why bother with something as trivial as
jurisprudence, due process, fundamental fairness, and
basic legal principles and procedures? The headline in
the Electronic Telegraph for September 6, 2002 was
"Milosevic unmoved": "Milosevic yawns as soldier witness
tells of village massacre" by Neil Tweedie for September
7, 2002. National Public Radio (NPR) pointed to the dead
babies testimony to vindicate and justify their
anti-Serbian posture.

The US and Western media advanced the propaganda line
that, contrary to all common sense and rudimentary legal
concepts, the ICTY had proven its case against
Milosevic. Isabel Vincent in The National Post Online
for September 14, 2002, argued that the ICTY prosecutors
had won a "slam dunk": "Milosevic prosecutors win a
'slam dunk'". Ruth Wedgwood, an international law
professor at Johns Hopkins University, was quoted as
follows: "Kosovo was a slam dunk." The term "slam dunk"
is an Americanism using a basketball analogy. Does using
a basketball analogy in a genocide prosecution reveal
profound moral hypocrisy and ethical cynicism or does it
demonstrate a genuine concern for human rights?
According to Vincent, the K41 dead babies testimony was
achieving its results in Serbia, instilling guilt and
contrition of the Serbian Orthodox as the ICTY
prosecutors planned: "After K41's testimony, media
outlets in Belgrade noted prosecutors were beginning to
win the case against Mr. Milosevic." Of course, not
legally, but emotionally, or at the propaganda or
infowar level. The propaganda was working. Keep it
coming. Give us more of the same. As for the legal case
against Milosevic, Vincent concluded that the ICTY
prosecutors "appeared to present a strong case." The
operative term here is "appeared". Was a strong legal
case against Milosevic presented? We do not know because
"appeared" is a meaningless, superficial term, actually
a propagandistic term implying plausible deniability and
reality control and spin. Based on the facts and the
evidence, the prosecution case was a total and complete
failure and flop/fiasco, "the travesty of the century".

Why does the US and Western media use the term "ethnic"
to describe Albanians but not the other ethnic groups in
the former Yugoslavia? The use of the term "ethnic"
stands out as an anomaly. The ethnic Serbs of
Bosnia-Hercegovina were referred to as "Bosnian Serbs".
The ethnic Serbs of Krajina were referred to as
"Croatian Serbs". The ethnic Macedonians of Macedonia
were referred to as "Slavs". Does a propaganda pattern
emerge? Why the difference in media reporting with
reference to the term "ethnic"? Nothing in propaganda or
infowar is by accident or at random. This terminology
was devised and manufactured at the US State Department
and then handed out to the "free and independent" media
as an instance of handout journalism. Every word, every
nuance of the psyop technician has a subtle purpose. As
Hitler noted, propaganda is not meant as "interesting
distraction for blasé young gentlemen". Propaganda takes
time, coordination, planning, and money to organize.
Infowar techniques have a specific result in mind, to
convince. To be consistent, US/Western terminology
should refer to Bosnian Serbs, Croatian Serbs, as
"ethnic" Serbs. But that was not the case. Ethnic
Albanians should be referred to as Yugoslav Albanians or
Serbian Albanians. In the Macedonia conflict, the two
groups, Albanians and Macedonians, were described as
"ethnic Albanians" and "Slavs" respectively. Is this
just random and by accident? We have to get inside the
mind of the US propagandist here. The terms the US
propagandist uses are based on function or on objectives
the US propagandist seeks to advance or achieve. Let us
take the term "Croatian Serbs", an oxymoron coined by
the US propagandist at the US State Department. Why this
term? The infowar technician wants to convince the
reader that the ethnic Serbian population of Croatia
only has meaning as part of Croatia. In other words, the
propagandist opposes any autonomy for the Krajina Serbs
or ethnic Serbs of Croatia. The way this brainwashing is
achieved is by the oxymoron "Croatian Serbs". Similarly,
the US propagandist coined the term "Bosnian Serb" for
the ethnic Serbs of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Why? The
choice here again is to limit Serbs to the territory of
Bosnia by the use of the limiting adjective "Bosnian".
The propagandist could just as well have used "ethnic
Serbs" or "Hercegovina Serbs" but instead chose "Bosnian
Serbs". Similarly, in the Macedonian conflict, the US
propagandist could use the term "Macedonian Albanians"
but instead refers to them as "ethnic Albanians". This
requires a parallel designation for "ethnic
Macedonians". But inconsistently and illogically, the
propaganda specialist uses the term "Slavs". Here the
goal is the opposite. The term "ethnic" is used because
"Macedonian" would limit the Albanian population to the
territory of Macedonia. The term "Slavs" is used because
the infowar technician wants to de-legitimize the ethnic
Macedonian classification. The dichotomy is between
"ethnic Albanians" and "Slavs". This creates parity and
equality between the two groups and allows for the
establishment of a separate Albanian federation in
Macedonia, the division of the country into "Slavs" and
"ethnic Albanians", the Greater Albania federalization
plan. Similarly, the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia is
referred to as "ethnic Albanians" and not as "Yugoslav
Albanians" or "Serbian Albanians" or Kosovo Albanians.
The rationale is obvious. The US propagandist seeks to
deny legitimacy to Yugoslavia and to Serbia by using the
vague and open term "ethnic". This systematic and
planned propaganda campaign insults our intelligence and
treats us like swine and cattle. But the US government
and media do not agree. They would maintain that they
are doing us a service, that they are teaching us how to
think correctly and ethically. Moreover, they are
counteracting the negative influence of the "butcher",
"dictator", "Hitler", Milosevic's propaganda. So enjoy
it. It is for your own good.

The dead babies testimony was presented by witness K41,
an anonymous witness, who presented his testimony on
"video link". K41 was the star prosecution witness after
the botched Rade Markovic fiasco. K41 was the final act,
the climax to the Kosovo Phase of the "trial of the
century". Before his testimony, Judge Richard May
summarily dismissed Milosevic's request to make legal
submissions: "Mr. Milosevic, we're not hearing legal
submissions now." Judge May was eager and excited to get
the star witness who was going to deliver the "slam
dunk" against Milosevic: "Now, Witness K41, we're going
to hear your evidence." K41 was questioned by Ryneveld,
and cross-examined by Slobodan Milosevic and Branislav
Tapuskovic.

Much of the background information regarding K41 was
"redacted" from the trial transcripts, that is, it was
cut out or censored. But what emerged was that K41 was
unable to get a passport to appear at the Hague in the
Netherlands because he was a suspected criminal
fugitive, wanted by the Yugoslav police, who had been to
his house seeking his arrest. K41 was 19 years old at
the time he was a member of the 549th Motorized Brigade
in Prizren. K41 was in the Battalion Technical Company.
His duties consisted of the maintenance of trucks, road
construction, and delivering food supplies. His
Logistics Battalion was part of the Technical Company
under the charge of Sergeant Rajko Kozlina. K41 served
from September 9, 1998 to June 10, 1999. His company was
ordered to set up an ambush in the Trnje area of Kosovo.
K41 testified that he and other Yugoslav troops had
expelled Albanian civilians from villages after the
villages had been shelled. He had received orders "to
clean up the village." There had been no shooting from
the village. He testified that the inhabitants were all
Albanian civilians. He stated that there was "looting"
of "shops" by Yugoslav troops. He saw no UCK/KLA
uniforms. K41 "left the village of Trnje with a truck
full of bodies and children." A truck full of dead
babies! Hill & Knowlton and Ruder Finn could never top
that one. What a propaganda bonanza! Too bad this is a
trial and not a PR campaign. Hill & Knowlton and Ruder
Finn would have a field day. One of his accomplices in
the massacre was Miroslav Fejzic according to K41. But
during cross-examination Milosevic was able to show that
no one by the name of Miroslav Fejzic was in the
company. His actual name was Mohammed Fejzic. Why is
this important? It may or may not be. K41 stated that
the "nickname" for Fejzic in the company was "Miroslav",
a Slavic Christian name. Why would a Muslim be called by
such a "nickname"? One possible explanation is the ICTY
prosecutors wanted to conceal the fact that one of the
accomplices to the so-called massacre near Trnje was a
Muslim. The object was to create a clear-cut line
between Good and Evil, a classic dichotomy between Us
and Them. But if one of those killing the Muslim victims
was a Muslim himself, the story is rendered less
plausible. Moreover, the dichotomy is destroyed.
Miroslav Fejzic? That is an oxymoron. Why conceal the
fact that his real name is Mohammed Fejzic?

In his cross-examination of Witness K41, Milosevic was
able to show that a warrant had been issued for the
arrest of K41 for armed robbery. The police had come to
K41's house but he had fled. He was fleeing and eluding
arrest. This is a serious crime in itself. K41 was a
wanted criminal and a self-confessed murderer. Why was
he the star prosecution witness against Milosevic?

Milosevic explained that he wanted to "test" the
"credibility" of K41 by this line of question. Judge
May, however, cautioned Milosevic to question K41 on his
testimony only. Milosevic stated that "quite obviously
we're dealing with a criminal here." Milosevic explained
that K41 was part of a contingent sent to the village of
Ljubizda Has near the Albanian border where UCL/KLA
guerrillas/terrorists were infiltrating Yugoslavia from
their military bases in Albania. The unit of which K41
was a member had set up an ambush position at the
village which was 4 kilometers from the Albanian border
on the Pastrik Mountains. Milosevic introduced evidence
that representatives of the OSCE Verification Mission
witnessed the Yugoslav military operations in the region
at the time. The OSCE "conducted a verification
spot-check" and concluded that no civilians were killed.
There were no massacres or executions according to the
OSCE monitors who were on the scene. Instead, 9 UCK/KLA
guerrillas were killed in the operation in Jeskovo. The
UCK "freedom fighters'/"terrorists" were all wearing UCK
military uniforms with Greater Albania badges, the black
double-headed eagle on a red background, the national
flag of Albania, the mother country. The UCK troops all
possessed weapons. Brigadier General Michel Maisonneuve
of the Canadian force, head of the regional center in
Prizren, along with OSCE monitors from Poland, Finland,
and Russia confirmed these facts. How could the OSCE
monitors miss another Racak-style massacre under their
own eyes? Milosevic concluded that "this witness, like
many others, is a false witness."

Milosevic pointed out an inconsistency in the testimony.
K41 stated that the massacre occurred in Trnje. But K32,
an earlier who witness gave the same testimony, claimed
that Medvedje was where the massacre occurred. After a
recess, the court announced that K32 had later corrected
his version to agree with that of K41. Milosevic
concluded: "These witnesses did not reach the right kind
of agreement when they were supposed to tell these
falsehoods."

K41 was part of a Logistics Battalion that supplied food
and water to front-line troops stationed in the Trnje
area of Kosovo-Metohija. Logistics is involved with
supply, not combat or actions in "built-up" positions,
and operates in the rear. Captain First Class Major
Pavle Gavrilovic had stated that every soldier was
instructed on how to treat the wounded, POWs, and
civilians and informed of humanitarian law. The Geneva
Convention guidelines were read to the troops. The
"Rules for Combatants" was also provided to the troops.
Gavrilovic concluded that no violations had occurred in
this area. K41 testified that there were no UCK/KLA
troops in the area. There was no combat whatsoever.
Milosevic queried K41: "You were just going and killing
babies, women, and children."

K41 stated that the Yugoslav forces suffered no
casualties and were not in danger. But Milosevic then
disproved this statement by introducing KFOR documents
that showed that a UCK/KLA brigade was in that area. A
heavy KLA concentration of military forces was located
precisely in the Trnje area. Milosevic showed that three
Yugoslav troops, Slobodan Gasparic, Bojan Jovanovic, and
Vladimir Mirko had been killed in the operation K41
described in combat with KLA guerrillas. Milosevic was
able to contradict the testimony of K41 that there were
no Yugoslav losses. The trial transcript is redacted
following this evidence. The evidence was presented in
private session. Milosevic asserted that this evidence
was offered "to show you that the witness has not been
telling the truth about other matters either."

Milosevic then introduced evidence that the OSCE had
reported no civilian deaths in the Trnje area of Kosovo.
In fact, Yugoslav police and military forces had helped
the Albanian civilians of this area to build roads. The
UCK/KLA guerrillas had occupied the villages and imposed
terror and blackmailed residents into paying money to
KLA. K41 testified that Yugoslav forces had burned
houses in Mamusa. But Milosevic introduced a tape that
showed that no houses had been burned in Mamusa. On the
tape, Albanian residents of Mamusa reported that no
houses had been burned. K41 stated that his unit fired
an anti-aircraft gun at the Albanian village for 20
minutes non-stop. Milosevic, however, was able to show
that based on the rate of fire of the gun, it was not
possible to maintain constant fire for that long without
the ammunition running out. K41 then changed his
testimony and stated that the fire was sporadic only.
Milosevic clearly showed that K41 did not know what he
was talking about.

Yugoslav military rules, regulations, and laws required
a member of the armed forces to report an order to
commit a crime and to disobey such an order. An order to
commit a crime was to be reported to a superior officer
immediately. All members of the Yugoslav armed forces
were duty-bound by the "Rules of Service" which every
member of the armed forces was required to know.
Milosevic introduced the "Rules of Service" as part of
the evidence to the court. Milosevic asked K41 if he was
aware of these rules and regulations. K41 replied that
he was not. Milosevic explained that every Yugoslav
soldier was informed of these regulations. K41 played
dumb. Perhaps he didn't have to play that much.

The amicus curia, Branislav Tapuskovic, then
cross-examined K41. Judge May admonished him: "Mr.
Tapuskovic, we wish not to be too long." Setting a time
limit on cross-examination is definitely a clear
violation of due process. Tapuskovic asked K41 why he
chose now to come forward with his testimony about
killing the "little" baby. Why had it taken him nearly
three years to confess his crimes? If he is innocent,
why does he fear going to the police? K41 explained that
he wanted to have his relatives exonerate him. He did
not want to go to the police. Tapuskovic explained that
the proper and legal way to be exonerated was to go
before a magistrate or judge. This is how to clear his
name. Eluding and fleeing the police was not the
accepted or normal way to be exonerated. K41 stated that
he planned to go to the police "when it suits me." K41
was asked about ICTY investigator John Zdrilic. Did
Zdrilic recruit him to testify? Was he offered anything
in exchange for his testimony? K41 explained: "I thought
that if I come forward and tell the truth that I will
feel easier in my soul." It had taken three years for
K41 to make his "confession".

Dead babies. That is what the Kosovo phase of the ICTY
Slobodan Milosevic "international trial of the century"
came down to. In the final analysis, this is what the
prosecution used to close their case against former
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, the "Hitler",
"dictator", "Butcher of the Balkans". The earlier ICTY
"star witness" exonerated Milosevic and admitted that he
was coerced. Milosevic alleged that Markovic was
"tortured" to testify falsely against him. Judge May
prevented any testimony on the "torture" allegation
because he ruled that it was "irrelevant" to the Kosovo
case.

The Kosovo phase of the "trial of the century", the war
crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic in the ICTY in the
Hague, concluded on September 11, 2002. Milosevic had
been charged with 66 counts of war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and genocide in the conflicts in
Kosovo-Metohija, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and
Croatia/Krajina. In what human rights groups have dubbed
"the international trial of the century", 95 days were
spent on in court testimony. The three-member panel was
presided over by Judge Richard May of the UK appointed
by Tony Blair. The prosecutor was Geoffrey Nice of the
UK. In these 95 days, 124 witnesses were called, both
public/open and "secret"/anonymous witnesses, while
chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte assembled over 300
exhibits, consisting of maps, charts, photographs, video
tapes, and statements. What is the result of the Kosovo
phase? The trial has been a total, complete, and
unmitigated failure and disaster. The trial has been
exposed as a political show trial orchestrated by the
US/NATO. Fundamental and elementary principles of due
process have been egregiously violated. News coverage of
the trial has been censored, suppressed, and
manipulated. The trial has been a useful propaganda tool
of US/NATO. Legally the trial is a travesty of justice.
The trial of the century is a lynching, exposing the
so-called Western justice as a sham.

What have legal analysts and the so-called mainstream
media concluded about the Kosovo phase of the trial of
the century? In The Independent (UK), September 11,
2002, Stephen Castle concluded that the prosecution
"fails to make vital link" in "Case against Milosevic
fails to make vital link". The prosecution needed to
prove command responsibility on the part of Slobodan
Milosevic. But this was not done. Castle concluded: "It
says [the prosecution] proves Mr. Milosevic must have
known of the murder and deportation of ethnic Albanians
in Kosovo, and he therefore bears command
responsibility." Ian Black in "Milosevic protests as
curtain falls on first act of his trial" in The Guardian
(UK), September 12, 2002, concluded: "If there were a
jury in this trial, it would probably be deeply divided
at this stage."

Lynching or Justice?

Is the ICTY trial of Slobodan Milosevic an example of
justice or is it a lynching? Edward L. Greenspan, QC, a
Toronto attorney in The National Post Online for March
13, 2002 concluded: "This is a lynching!" Due process
was violated as well as fundamental fairness and
elementary legal rules. Slobodan Milosevic was prevented
by Judge May from conducting a complete and thorough
cross-examination. May has set time limitations on the
Milosevic cross-examinations and has restricted their
scope. This is a blatant violation of an accused's right
to cross-examination. As Judge Learned Hand noted: "Thou
shalt not ration justice." Justice is rationed when a
time limit is set for cross-examination. Greenspan noted
the political nature of the trial and its function as a
show trial masterminded and organized by the US/NATO.
Greenspan concluded that the trial of the century was
nothing short of a lynching:

This is a lynching. Normally, lynchings are done
outdoors. Here, the lynching has been brought indoors.
Instead of a tree and rope, there are May and Del Ponte.
The problem with lynching is that it's flawed as a
process, whether the man who gets hanged is innocent or
guilty. The result is certain. A kangaroo court is one
in which legal procedures are largely a show, and the
action "jumps" from accusation to sentencing without due
process. No matter how long a trial takes, if the result
is inevitable, then it's a show trial. The accusers
might as well shoot Milosevic. At least it doesn't soil
the process.

Lynchings have a long history in American "justice".
Between 1882 and 1951, 4,730 persons were lynched in the
United States, 1,293 white, 3,437 black, by vigilantes
or vigilance groups. "Lynch law" or swamp law consists
in the administration of justice by a self-appointed and
self-constituted court that imposes sentence on a person
without due process. The goal is political and social
submission. Various explanations have been offered for
the derivation of the term "lynching". One explanation
bases the derivation from Colonel Charles Lynch
(1736-1796), a Virginia planter and justice of the
peace, who harassed Tories during the American
Revolutionary War. Summary punishment, usually hanging,
was imposed by a self-appointed commission without a
trial based in law. The punishment of persons suspected
of crime without due process of law is the gravamen of
the definition. Another derivation bases the term on
Captain William lynch (1742-1820) of Pittsylvania
County, Virginia, who made an agreement to punish
criminals without due process of law. Nation of Islam
Minister Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March
maintained lynching was derived from William Lynch, a
British slave-owner in the West Indies who later settled
in the United States. Lynch was alleged to have made a
speech in 1712 to US slave owners advising them on how
to control and subjugate their slaves.

How did the ICTY obtain jurisdiction over Slobodan
Milosevic? Due to intense military, economic, and
political pressure by the US and NATO amounting to
"blackmail", Milosevic was arrested and extradited to
the Hague Tribunal in 2001. The US/NATO blackmail
included arming and training the UCK/KLA/UCMPB Greater
Albanian "terrorists", "guerrillas", "insurgents", and
planning military operations on their behalf in Southern
Serbia. The US/NATO sent this KLA proxy army from
US/NATO occupied Kosovo into Serbia where they murdered
and mutilated the bodies of several Serbian policemen
and soldiers and occupied Serbian towns and villages.
Was this terror campaign by the US meant to achieve
"greater rights" for the Albanian minority in
Yugoslavia? That was the official propaganda or "party
line" spewed forth by US propaganda outlets like
National Public Radio (NPR), the "Radio Free America",
and RFE/RE. But the actual motive was to exert blackmail
on the Serbian government. Dead and mutilated corpses of
Serbian police and soldiers would only stop if Milosevic
was extradited to the Hague. That was the price. The
US/NATO moreover withheld economic aid to Yugoslavia
unless Milosevic was extradited. Using military,
economic, and political blackmail is prohibited by the
United Nations and international legal guidelines. But
NPR and RFE/RL and the mainstream media of the US/NATO
countries never seemed to notice or to care. Laws exist
to be broken. The ends justified the means.

The Serbian and Yugoslav constitutions prohibited the
extradition of Milosevic. Nevertheless, the US/NATO and
the ICTY urged the violation of the both the Serbian and
Yugoslav constitutions. The Vojislav Kostunica/Zoran
Djinjic regime complied. Milosevic was
unconstitutionally extradited to the Hague in violation
of the constitutions.

Milosevic attacked the jurisdiction and legitimacy of
the ICTY tribunal. "Defiant Milosevic rejects 'lynch
law'" was the headline by Neil Tweedie at the Hague for
February 2, 2002 in the Telegraph. In a February 13,
2002 Reuters article by Andrew Roche, "Milosevic Scorns
War Crimes Trial as 'Lynching'", Milosevic accused the
trial of being a "lynching":

This tribunal does not have the right to try me because
it has not been established lawfully. We cannot speak of
a fair or equitable trial here. The prosecutor is not
only biased but has already publicized my judgment. From
your prosecutor's office a media campaign has been
orchestrated as a parallel lynching.

Is this a valid characterization of the international
trial of the century? Is it a lynching? What is a
lynching?

Fundamental and elementary standards of due process are
violated in the ICTY: 1) an accused has no right to bail
or to a speedy trial; 2) defendants can be tried and
convicted for the same crime twice, no double jeopardy
safeguards; 3) there is no
distinction/separation/division between the judge and
prosecution; 4) there is no clear burden of proof for
conviction; 5) there is no independent appeal body or
process; 6) suspects can be held for 90 days without
trial; 7) hearsay evidence is admissible; 8) witnesses
can testify anonymously and maintain "secret"
identities, i.e., K41, K32; 9) confessions are assumed
to be free and voluntarily given unless otherwise shown;
and, 10) secret indictments are allowed. Protagonists of
the ICTY argue that strict adherence to due process
guidelines is not possible because no nation wants to
see its citizens prosecuted. Moreover, political and
military leaders can use their influence and immunity to
avoid prosecution. Due process must be sacrificed in the
interests of expediency.

NATO is immune from prosecution for war crimes. The 6th
Convention of the Nuremberg prohibited targeting
civilian targets not based on "military necessity". NATO
systematically targeted Serbian civilian targets. ICTY
prosecutor Louise Arbour initially charged Milosevic
with war crimes at the behest of NATO and to support and
buttress the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia.
Louise Arbour made the charges at the apex of the NATO
bombing campaign when NATO was bombing Serbian civilian
targets in violation of the Nuremberg conventions. NATO
targeted Serbian television, power grids, oil
refineries, bridges, passenger trains, busses,
automobiles, nursing homes, Orthodox churches, and
hospitals. Thus, the initial charges were lodged as a
cover for NATO war crimes. Indeed, even before the NATO
bombing, Paddy Ashdown had threatened that Milosevic
would be indicted by NATO for war crimes if he did not
allow NATO troops to occupy Yugoslavia. Ian Black, in
the September 12, 2002 "Hectoring interventions" in The
Guardian (UK), quoted Ashdown as follows when he
testified against Milosevic at the Tribunal: "I said
that you would end up in this court, and here you are."
Indeed, NATO was able to write its own script and
dictate events at will. Milosevic opposed NATO
occupation of Yugoslavia. Now he paid the price for
opposing NATO. Exactly as Ashdown threatened. The ICTY
is just a NATO/US tribunal.

The ICTY prosecution seeks to establish command
responsibility or superior authority over subordinates
based on the theory of joint criminal enterprise a
criminal conspiracy theory. If a group is engaged in a
criminal operation then guilt is imputed to all members
of that group so long as they are members of the group
and seek to advance the goals or objectives of the
operation or enterprise. Under this quasi-conspiracy
theory, command responsibility can be imputed to
Milosevic as the member holding the top command
authority. Milosevic need not have direct knowledge of
all the events carried out in the commission of the
scheme. Knowledge can be inferred or imputed. But a
criminal enterprise must first be established. And the
ICTY prosecution has not shown this. Anonymous Witness
K41 testified that he had executed 15 Albanian civilians
including the killing of a baby. But does this show a
criminal enterprise? K41 should turn himself in to the
Yugoslav police and be prosecuted for the crimes he
personally committed. What have the actions of K41 to do
with Milosevic? No link has been established whatsoever.

The ICTY appointed three amici curiae, friends of the
court, lawyers to assist Milosevic in his defense and to
ensure that the trial is fair, Branislav Tapuskovic from
Yugoslavia, Steven Kay from the UK, and Mikhail
Wladimiroff from the Netherlands. Wladimiroff, a Dutch
lawyer, gave a newspaper interview in which he claimed
that there was enough evidence to convict Milosevic.
Vladimiroff was quoted in a Bulgarian newspaper of
saying that Milosevic had a "zero" chance of being
acquitted. He was appointed to assist in Milosevic's
defense and to ensure that justice was maintained. But
with only the Kosovo phase concluded, he was making his
opinion known. Indeed, why even bother with a trial?
Just hang Milosevic now? But he overreacted in his
eagerness and called his hand and thereby exposed the
"trial of the century" as a sham and farce. As everyone
already knew, the verdict had been reached in advance:
Guilty. The pathetic and shameful aspect of this
incident is that Vladimiroff announced this to the press
as a revelation or bombshell. Only problem was that the
cat was out of the bag. Everyone knew the so-called
trial was a lynching and political show trial. What is
the great mystery here? Of course Milosevic is guilty.
Why even have a trial at all? Lynch the scoundrel
immediately! Hang the "Balkan Hitler" from the nearest
tree or lamppost. Show everyone how Western justice
really works? The ICTY dismissed Vladimiroff because his
statements were supposed to have compromised the
impartiality of the tribunal. But there was no
impartiality to compromise.

Mainstream media accounts of the Kosovo phase of the
trial of the century were self-congratulatory. The US
media parroted this propaganda line. The Los Angeles
Times for September 13, 2002 had this headline:
"Compelling Case Seen Against Milosevic". The Fresno Bee
for September 10, 2002 stated that: "Military expert
says Milosevic responsible for war crimes".

Common sense told a different story. In the WSWS
analysis for September 11, 2002, "The Milosevic Trial:
Key prosecution witness backs deposed Yugoslav
president" by Keith Lee and Paul Mitchell concluded:
"The fact is that the prosecution has not been able to
produce any evidence that Milosevic was directly
responsible for war crimes." Moreover, they noted that
"officials used threats to extract testimony, ex-spy
chief says" referring to the exculpatory testimony of
Rade Markovic, who under oath stated that he was coerced
to testify against Milosevic. Milosevic then accused the
ICTY prosecutors of using "torture" in violation of UN
conventions to extract and compel Markovic's testimony.
Judge May, however, concluded that this testimony of
alleged torture was irrelevant to the main charge of war
crimes in Kosovo so he prevented Milosevic from
cross-examining Markovic further on this crucial issue.
The final ICTY prosecution witness during the Kosovo
phase was Canadian "military expert" on Yugoslavia,
Phillip Coo, who testified that Milosevic held ultimate
responsibility for decisions made by the Yugoslav
government. The conclusion was that this testimony
"failed to prove the charges" against Milosevic.
Initially, NATO charged Milosevic with causing the
planned murder of over 100,000 Albanians in Kosovo. This
was revealed and exposed to be a NATO hoax, part of the
massive and systematic NATO propaganda war against
Serbia/Yugoslavia. The ICTY had no choice but to reduce
the numbers allegedly killed to figures based on the
evidence or facts. The ICTY accused Milosevic for being
"responsible for the murder of hundreds of Albanians
from Kosovo." Absurdly, the so-called genocide was
reduced from the murder of 100,000 Albanians to the
murder of hundreds of Albanians. In fact, NATO bombing,
"collateral damage", killed more Albanian civilians than
Milosevic's forces did. NATO killed more Albanians than
Milosevic did. Who is guilty of war crimes then?

NATO Kills a Baby

NATO killed more babies and children than Milosevic did.
On April 10, 1999, at 11:55 PM, a NATO attack on Merdare
and Mirovac on the Kosovo-Serbia border killed an
eleven-month-old Serbian baby in Kosovo as was reported
in a Tanjug news report for April 11. 1999, "NATO Kills
a Baby". On the 18th day of the NATO bombardment, on
Orthodox Easter, Bojana Tosovic, who was an 11 month old
baby, was killed along with her father, Bozin Tosovic,
from Kursumlija, 30 years of age, and her mother Marija
Tosovic was seriously injured. On April 18, 3 year old
Milica Rakic of Batajnica was killed by NATO bombing.
NATO used cluster bombs, banned by international
agreements. The New York Times wrote, "in Merdare, NATO
bombs and anti-personnel cluster bombs demolished four
houses early Sunday morning, killing five." The New York
Times noted that: "A number of pigs and cows were
killed." The New York Times is more concerned for the
welfare of pigs and cows than the killing of a Serbian
baby. This is the epitome of dehumanization. The New
York Times has reduced propaganda to a science. There
was nothing about the killing of a Serbian baby by NATO.
And nothing about the illegality of using cluster bombs.
General Wesley Clark called it an "uncanny accident"
when 20 civilians were killed.

Serbian civilians and the civilian infrastructure of
Yugoslavia/Serbia were purposely targeted by US/NATO.
Passenger trains, automobiles, tractors, factories,
automotive plants, electricity power grids, nursing
homes, hospitals, residential areas were systematically
and methodically targeted by the US/NATO. A Spanish
pilot in NATO even confessed that civilian targets were
systematically and purposely targeted. The Serbian
civilian population was the target. An unexploded shell
had this written on it by US troops: "You still wanna be
a Serb now!!"

NATO bombed a passenger train that killed 23 civilians.
Was this by accident and due to a mistake? The NATO
pilot in cold blood waited until the passenger train
crossed the bridge and then bombed the train along with
the bridge to kill as many Serbian civilians as
possible. Isn't this a war crime? The way NATO explained
this systematic killing of Serbian civilians was that
the bridge itself was targeted only, while it is only a
coincidence that the passenger train happened to be
passing over it just when NATO jets bombed it. How
plausible is this? NATO not only committed war crimes by
targeting civilians but also by concealing its blatant
and egregious war crimes in Yugoslavia. NATO sped up
film footage of the attack on the passenger train to
make it appear as if it was by accident. NATO wanted to
create the illusion that the NATO pilot did not have
time to react to the passenger train. NATO knew it was
committing war crimes which were subsequently
covered-up. NATO spokesman Jamie Shea functioned as a
Joseph Goebbels-style "information" or propaganda
mouthpiece. When NATO killed approximately 100 Albanian
civilians who were in a tractor convoy, Shea stated
first that the Yugoslav/Serbian military forces had
massacred them. Then Shea stated that the Yugoslav
forces had tricked NATO into bombing Albanian civilians.
Finally, Shea admitted NATO pilots killed the Albanian
civilians, but argued that it was by mistake and by
accident, i.e., "collateral damage". Shea did Joseph
Goebbels proud! The NATO bombing of Yugoslav targets was
the purposeful, planned, and systematic targeting of
civilians. NATO violated the Nuremberg Convention and
committed war crimes. Why isn't NATO prosecuted? The
Milosevic trial was meant to cover up these NATO war
crimes.

The dead babies propaganda of the ICTY demonstrates the
moral hypocrisy and selective morality of the US/NATO.
The US/NATO sanctioned the murder of two-year-old Kosovo
Serb Danilo Cokic, his father Njegos, and his mother
Snezana. The entire Cokic family was murdered. The
US/NATO dismissed this mass murder as a "revenge"
killing. The mass murder of a Kosovo Serbian family was
a planned, premeditated murder carried out by Kosovo
Albanians. The Cokic family was on a bus traveling
through Kosovo when Albanians detonated a
remote-controlled bomb killing 11 Kosovo Serbs. The
suspected Albanian murderers were allowed to escape by
US/NATO forces and no one was prosecuted. Kosovo Serb
Branko Jovic, 70, and his wife Saveta, 65, were
bludgeoned to death with an axe by Albanian attackers.
The US/NATO dismissed this murder as a "revenge"
killing. Moreover, approximately 230,000 Kosovo Serbs,
Roma, Turks, and Jews were expelled from Kosovo in an
officially sanctioned expulsion by US/NATO. Human rights
and international humanitarian law have nothing to do
with the Kosovo conflict. The ICTY and US/NATO are using
the dead babies propaganda merely to demonize Milosevic
and by implication the Serbian Orthodox. NATO/US and
ICTY engage in selective morality and moral hypocrisy.

Conclusion

The Slobodan Milosevic "trial of the century" has
absolutely nothing to do with international law, war
crimes, or justice. The "international trial of the
century" is a travesty of justice and international law,
the legal travesty of the century, "The Lie of the
Century", a US/NATO political show trial. President Bill
Clinton explained the motives for the Kosovo conflict
and the attendant "trial of the century" in The Nation
for April 19, 1999:

If we're going to have a strong economic relationship
that includes our ability to sell around the world..
That's what this Kosovo thing is all about.

The Kosovo conflict thus has nothing to do with human
rights or international humanitarian law or war crimes.
The Kosovo crisis was merely a pretext for expanding US
economic/political/military penetration of Eastern
Europe. In other words, it was all about markets and
spheres of influence, economic expansion and
exploitation with concomitant military expansion.
Coca-Cola diplomacy. The goal was to ensure that US
corporations and the Pentagon were allowed to expand
into the Balkans. Is this something new or original?
Absolutely not. This is merely an instance of Gun Boat
diplomacy, the Policy of the Big Stick, the Banana
Republic paradigm of South and Central America, the
"military-industrial complex". It is business as usual.
So in other words we do not need to sweat the small
stuff. Just enjoy your Big Mac and French Fries and your
Coke and your SUV and your mini-van. Enjoy your freedom.
Do not worry about the Slobodan Milosevic trial. We are
building McDonald's restaurants and Kentucky Fried
Chicken and Burger King franchises all over the world
now. Enjoy.

What about the violations of morality and ethics of the
Milosevic "trial of the century"? Why is the US/NATO
using an updated version of the Jewish Ritual Murder
accusation, the dead babies hoax, to demonize the
Serbian Orthodox? Why is the Racak Massacre Propaganda
of the Deed Hoax being repeated? Is this ethical and
moral? Is it humane? Isn't this racism and a violation
of basic human rights? Isn't the ICTY insulting our
intelligence and dignity as human beings with the dead
babies propaganda? How can we say we have progressed and
advanced when we are witnessing a reversion to the
tactics of the Jewish Ritual Murder hoax? Have we
progressed? Have we advanced? Or have we regressed
instead? Has our moral and ethical sense been degraded?
Has our humanity been deadened by the New World Order?
The ICTY trial of the century of Slobodan Milosevic
answers all of these questions.



Carl Savich is a columnist for Serbianna.com.