Dichiarazione del presidente Milosevic sulla illegalita'
del Tribunale "ad hoc" dell'Aia, della quale e' stata impedita
la lettura pubblica durante l'udienza del 30 agosto:
la versione in inglese in fondo a questo messaggio.
English text at the bottom
---
STENOGRAM
sa pojavljivanja predsednika Slobodana Milosevica
pred "Haskim tribunalom", 30. avgusta 2001. godine
u Hagu
SUDIJA MEJ:
Gospodine Milosevicu, postoje li kakva pitanja koja biste vi zeleli
izneti u vezi sa vasim slucajem ili u vezi sa vasim psihickim i
fizickim stanjem? Vi ste upoznati sa pravilnikom koji ne dopusta
nikakve govore u ovom trenutku. Vi cete imati priliku za to,
odnosno priliku da se branite kada za to dodje vreme, no, ukoliko
postoje neka pitanja koja zelite izneti u vezi sa vasim slucajem,
prilika je da to ucinite.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Kao prvo, zeleo bih da znam da li cu moci da govorim ili cete
iskljuciti mikrofon kao sto ste to ucinili poslednji put?
SUDIJA MEJ:
Gospodine Milosevicu, ukoliko budete postovali pravila imacete
mogucnosti da govorite, ako se budete drzali relevantnih pitanja
imacete mogucnosti da govorite.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Da, to bi bilo moje sledece pitanje. Ja bih hteo da kazem da je to
ilegalan sud.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Vi ste vec izneli prigovor po tom pitanju. Da li vi sada trazite da
vam se odobri mogucnost da se Vecu obratite usmeno u vezi s tim
pitanjem?
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Za usmeno izlaganje trebace mi 40 minuta. Posto mi to ne
dozvoljavate, ja cu to izneti u pisanom obliku. Moji saradnici ce to
izneti u stampi ukoliko vi meni ne dozvolite da to javno sada
iznesem.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Ukoliko vi to ucinite u pisanom obliku to ce biti objavljeno kada za
to dodje vreme. Ako vec sada to imate napisano onda ce biti
daleko prikladnije da se to obradi na taj nacin.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Da, u redu! Ali potrebno je da razgovaramo kao civilizovane
osobe. Ne na nacin da mi iskljucujete mikrofone, ili da se koristi
bilo kakva sila. Potrebno je da se razumemo kada je rec o tome sta
je moguce, a sto nije. Dakle, kad ne dopustate usmeno, ja cu to
predati vama u pisanom obliku.
SUDIJA MEJ:
U redu.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Ako dozvolite, jos bih komentarisao ono sto sam sada upravo cuo.
Cuo sam, naime, nesto vrlo zanimljivo, sto dokazuje ono sto su
vec rekli pre 3. jula u ovoj istoj prostoriji. Naime, da se radi o
jednoj laznoj optuznici. Ja sam optuzen 26. maja, 60-tog dana
NATO-ve agresije protiv Jugoslavije, dok sam ja branio svoju
zemlju. Dakle, dve i po godine su protekle od tog datuma, i mi smo
upravo sada culi da oni koji tuze nemaju dokaze, da oni ne mogu
dovrsiti svoju optuznicu. Dve i po godine je vrlo dugo vreme cak i
za kompletiranje jedne lazne optuznice, a ono sto smo mi upravo
culi je dokaz za to. Naravno, uzimajuci u obzir cinjenicu da ja ne
priznajem ovaj tribunal i da imam vrlo jasno misljenje koje
dokazuju pravne cinjenice, misljenje, naime, da je ovaj tribunal
nelegalan, ja ne vidim zasto bih se ja sada branio pred laznim
sudom na temelju jedne lazne optuznice. Dakle, to je jos jedno
objasnjenje koje sam zeleo da iznesem.
Ako mi dozvolite ja bih sada vama postavio neka pitanja koja se
ticu mojeg polozaja u jednom protivpravnom pritvoru.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Ne mozete postavljati pitanja. No, ukoliko zelite izneti nesto u
vezi sa tim, vi to mozete uciniti.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Po nalogu ove nelegalne institucije, ja sam u potpunoj izolaciji.
Moje pitanje s tim u vezi je zasto sam ja izolovan od svoje
porodice, zasto me moja porodica ne moze posetiti na isti nacin
kako to cine porodice drugih koji imaju tu mogucnost? Zasto se
prate posete moje porodice, zasto prisluskujete razgovore koje ja
vodim cak i sa mojim unukom koji je star samo dve i po godine?!
Zasto? Zasto cinite sve to? Zasto na tako grub nacin krsite moja
prava? Zasto sam izolovan od osoba koje bi zelele da me posete i
sa kojima imam potrebu da razgovaram, s kojima zelim da
razgovaram o raznoraznim pravnim aspektima mog polozaja u
ovom ilegalnom pritvoru.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Da zastanemo na trenutak. Pravila koja se ticu pritvora potpadaju
pod nadleznost sekretara Medjunarodnog suda. Ukoliko se
primenjuju na vas na nacin razlicit od drugih pritvorenika, mi cemo
se o tome raspitati. Samo trenutak.
Poteskoca koja se vezuje za advokate je sledeca. Vi, naime, jos
uvek niste odabrali odnosno imenovali advokata. A, pravila
dozvoljavaju samo posete od strane imenovanih advokata. Ja sada
zelim znati da li je vas stav da se vi zelite braniti sami, da ne
zelite da vam se imenuje advokat, ali zelite imati pristup pravnim
savetnicima. Da li bi to bio adekvatan rezime vaseg stava?
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Jasno je da ja imam pravo na kontakt sa razlicitim strucnjacima u
vezi sa razlicitim aspektima mog polozaja u protivpravnom
pritvoru. Osim toga, ja imam pravo kontakta sa advokatima koji se
bave mojim privatnim stvarima u Jugoslaviji. Isto tako imam pravo
na kontakt sa advokatima koji su angazovani u nekim
medjunarodnim organizacijama koje me podrzavaju. Ja imam pravo
na komuniciranje s tim ljudima, ne razumem kako to moze da se
primenjuje na diskriminatoran nacin. Koliko ja shvatam, pravni
sistem se zasniva na nepostojanju bilo kakve diskriminacije, a ja
sam diskriminisan od prvog dana od kada sam ovde.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Problem, gospodine Milosevicu, lezi u cinjenici da vi niste
imenovali advokata. Nase osoblje mora postovati pravila. Osoba
koja ima pravo na pravne posete je vas imenovani advokat. Ali vi
ste izneli dve stvari u vezi s kojima zelite primiti savet. Dakle, vi
zelite savet u vezi sa vasim polozajem ovde u ovom postupku, isto
tako, kada je rec o vasim stvarima, o vasim poslovima u
Jugoslaviji. Je li tako?
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Naravno, to je tako. I ja imam jos na umu citav niz drugih stvari u
vezi s kojima zelim da razgovaram sa osobama koje zele da me
posete i koje zele da sa mnom kontaktiraju.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Na prvom Vecu cu se o tome raspitati I obavestiti vas. I to cemo
uzeti u obzir.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Trece pitanje je zasto sam ja izolovan od stampe?! Zasto mi se ne
dozvoljava nikakav kontakt? Vi me drzite u izolaciji, ja nemam
pravo na bilo kakav kontakt sa medijima. Cak ni telefonom koji mi
je za sada jedini na raspolaganju. Ovde su neki predstavnici
stampe i medija koji bi zeleli da znaju istinu. Ja mislim da niko ne
treba da se boji istine. S jedne strane, postoji citava ta masinerija
koju vi predstavljate, sve te tajne sluzbe, vojne organizacije, na
mojoj strani je jedino - istina. Ukoliko vi mene izolujete, ukoliko
mi onemogucavate kontakt sa stampom, onda je jasno da se ovde
radi o diskriminaciji. Vi cak ne mozete, na bilo koji nacin, da
nekoga uverite, da pravilno postupate u vezi sa postupkom koji
imate na umu.
I jos da vas podsetim, ja ne priznajem ovaj Medjunarodni tribunal,
smatram ga potpuno protivpravnim i nelegalnim. Sva ta pitanja
koja se ticu advokata i pravnog zastupanja su sasvim izlisna. Ja
sam video u stampi.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Gospodine Milosevicu, moramo ovde uneti reda. Samo trenutak.
Prvo, ono sto ste pokrenuli. Pitanje koje ste pokrenuli. Prema
pravilima pritvorske jedinice, ne postiji nikakav kontakt sa
medijima. Ta pravila se ne ticu samo vas. Ne radi se ni o kakvoj
diskriminaciji. Ta se pravila primenjuju na sve optuzenike koji su u
pritvoru. Sto se tice cinjenice da vi ne priznajete Medjunarodni
tribunal, mi smo to culi, i nema nikakve potrebe da se to ponavlja.
Postoji li jos nesto sto zelite izneti?
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Koliko sam ja shvatio, oni se bave tim pitanjem protivzakonitosti
suda, nelegalnosti, dakle, to je pitanje nadleznosti. Svakom
advokatu na ovom svetu je jasno da se pitanje nadleznosti moze
pokrenuti pred svakom pravnom institucijom. Medjutim, vi niste
pravna institucija, vi ste politicko sredstvo.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Gospodine Milosevicu, mi necemo sada slusati ove politicke
argumente. Vi mozete da podnesete podnesak o nadleznosti, mi
cemo taj podnesak i razmotriti. Mi cemo podnesak razmotriti.
U redu, rasprava je zavrsena. A nastavicemo u ponedeljak 29.
oktobra.
Molimo ustanite.
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
---
What follows is the statement that president Milosevic was
not allowed to read when he appeared, August 30, before the
"tribunal" in the Hague.
STATEMENT
OF PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ON THE ILLEGITIMACY OF THE HAGUE
"TRIBUNAL"
There are three fatal legal flaws in the so called International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Each has disastrous
consequences for the human quest for peace, the rule of law,
democracy, truth and justice.
1. THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED
NATIONS DOES NOT EMPOWER THE
SECURITY COUNCIL TO CREATE A
CRIMINAL COURT
The U.N. Security Council has seized power it does not possess,
corrupting the Charter of the United Nations, placing itself above
the law and threatening "We Peoples of the United Nations" with
a lawless future in which a superpower employs the scourge of
war to have its way. Nothing in the history of the planning,
drafting, discussion, approval or ratifications of the U.N. Charter
implies, or is consistent with an intention to empower any body
created by, or under, the Charter to establish any criminal tribunal.
The words of the Charter and their textual inferences, the
structure and allocation of power and duties, including those in the
incorporated Statute for the International Court of Justice, all
negate the existence of any capacity under the Charter to ordain
criminal courts. The Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia is
illegitimate and its creation a corruption of the United Nations.
There would never have been a United Nations if its Charter
stated, or implied, that a criminal court could be created under its
authority. No one who believes in historical truth, or that words
have meaning can, after examining the history of its creation and
its text, contend that the Charter of the United Nations empowers
the Security Council to create a criminal court.
An International Criminal Court Can Be Created
Only By A Multinational Treaty, Or
Amendment To The Charter Of The United Nations
The national representatives ho have served on the Security
Council and in the General Assembly and the scholars, lawyers
and experts who have labored for more than thirty years to bring
into being an international criminal court have recognized that the
only lawful and binding way such a court can be created is by an
agreement among nations through a treaty agreed upon for that
purpose, or by amending the Charter of the United Nations under
its strict provisions regulating amendments to authorize, or
establish a court.
When an International Criminal Court was finally agreed upon in
July 1998 by 120 nations meeting in Rome, it was by treaty which
had been studied, drafted and debated for years. The United
States, the most powerful participant in that long process,
consistently sought to weaken the treaty to exempt U.S. leaders
and military personnel from prosecution before it. Having failed
the U.S. was then the most prominent and powerful of the handful
of nations that refused to sign. As of August 1, 2001 37 nations,
the Netherlands the most recent, had ratified the treaty.
The United States is vigorously trying to persuade, coerce, or
bribe nations not to ratify.
Creation Of The International Criminal Tribunal
For The Former Yugoslavia Was A Lawless Act Of
Political Expediency By The United States Designed
To Demonize And Destroy An Enemy And Frustrate
Creation Of A Legitimate International Criminal Tribunal
At the insistence of the U.S. the Security Council nearly fifty
years after it came into being forged a new and powerful weapon
capable of demonizing a nation and its people and depriving
individuals of their liberty for the rest of their lives and placed it
largely in the hands of the United States. The principal precedents
for such pseudo judicial actions over several millennia preceding
the creation of the U.N. are trials of leaders and soldiers of
vanquished populations by the victors in war, and courts used by
colonial powers to control and punish subjugated peoples. The
precedents are many and the violence and cruelty and hatred they
usually exposed and caused was extreme.
Unless It is Limited By The U.N. Charter And
International Law, The Security Council Can Do
Whatever It Chooses To Do
If it is not restrained by the United Nations Charter, the Security
Council can commit any act it desires disregarding all law. Early
proponents of United States world power claimed such unbridled
discretion for the Security Council publicly. Thus in 1950 John
Foster Dullas wrote:
"The Security Council is not a body that
merely enforces agreed law. It is a law unto
itself... No principles of law are laid down
to guide it, it can decide in accordance with
what it thinks is expedient."
If unchallenged, this concept of Security Council power means
that the most powerful international organ created by the Charter
of the United Nations "to end the scourge of war" is above all law,
domestic and international.
But absolute discretion is the very definition of lawlessness and
has been called "more destructive of freedom than any other of
man's inventions," by U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O.
Douglas. All rights of all nations, races, religions, cultures,
political parties and individuals are thereby subordinated to the
will of the Security Council, and the single superpower that too
often will dominate it. All but fifteen nations are excluded from
Security Council counsels. Each of the five permanent members
can veto its actions.
The Security Council is subject to domination by a single nation.
The representative of each member votes as instructed by the
national government that appoints him and to serve the interests
of that government, not as an international statesman serving all
peoples and the purposes for which the U.N. was created. The
Security Council is inaccessible, anonymous and less responsive
to democratic processes than any other international political
institution.
2. A ONE TIME, ONE EPISODE COURT
TARGETING ONE COUNTRY, CREATED
BY INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL POWER
TO SERVE ITS GEO-POLITICAL
INTERESTS IS INCAPABLE OF EQUALITY
AND CONDUCTIVE OF DIVISION AND
VIOLENCE
The illegitimate Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia corrupts
justice and law because it is incapable of acting equally among
nations, or within the politically targeted nation. It will increase
violence, division and the risk of war with neighboring nations and
peoples and within Yugoslavia among the segments of the society
the U.S. policy of balkanization of Former Yugoslavia has set
against each other and against the new government the U.S. has
installed for its own purposes. If the United Nations Charter had
authorized the Security Council to create criminal courts, it could
not create a court for one nation, or episode for political purposes,
to persecute selected groups, or persons and such a court is
incapable of equal justice under law. An ad hoc court violates the
most basic principles of all law. Equality is the mother of justice.
An international court established to prosecute acts in a single
nation and primarily, if not entirely, one limited group is pre
programmed to persecute incapable of equality.
If the Security Council can create a criminal court to prosecute
conduct in a single country like Yugoslavia, it can appoint a court
for any country, selecting enemies or political and economic
opportunities for targeting one at a time, while never exposing
itself, or those who comply with its wishes to such selective
prosecution. If the U.S., or any ally or client state it chose to
protect was the subject of a serious effort by the Security Council
to be honored with a criminal tribunal in its own name, the U.S.
would veto the threatened action.
A Court created only for crimes in one country is by definition
discriminatory, incapable of equal justice, a weapon against
chosen enemies, or antagonistic interests and war by other
means. If there is to be any international criminal court, it must
act equally as to all nations with none above the law. The ad hoc
tribunal for a single nation corrupts international law.
By its very nature, the ad hoc Tribunal can be created only after
the conduct the Security Council decides justifies creation of the
Court since there is no other excuse for its creation. It is in every
case ex post facto. This violates an ancient principle of law. It
also requires the Security Council, if there is to be a rational basis
for its action, to make some preliminary claim to finding of facts, a
task such a political body is not designed for, that inherently
incriminates a country, or faction by placing the imprimatur of the
Security Council of the United Nations on a political decision of
fact necessary to justify creation of the Tribunal. The very charge
of the Security Council - genocide, crimes against peace, war
crimes, or crimes against humanity demonized any person
thereafter accused.
The Selection Of A Nation For Prosecution
On Political Findings Of Genocide, War Crimes
And Crimes Against Humanity Creates
A Compulsion to Convict.
Investigators, prosecutors and administrative personnel who join
a temporary Tribunal to pursue allegations of humanities greatest
crimes against a people and leaders already demonized will feel
they have failed if there are not convictions. The very psychology
of the enterprise is persecutorial. Few judges appointed to serve
on a Tribunal created under such circumstances will feel free to
acquit any but the most marginal, or clearly mistaken, accused, or
to create an appearance of objectivity.
Powers That Create Ad Hoc International Criminal
Tribunals Divert Attention From Their Own
Offenses, Or Failures, Or Those Of Allies And
Their Political Surrogates While Continuing
To Inflect And Threaten Mass Destruction With Impunity.
The ad hoc Tribunal which targets a country is incapable of
prosecuting what may be greater crimes committed in the same
conflict, by a power, coalition ally or political agents that was and
remains a much greater source of violence and threat to peace.
Most often the power which forced the creation of the target
tribunal to further damage and demonize their enemy is shielded
from criticism by the avalanche of propaganda against the
accused supported by the appearance of United Nations neutrality
and peace making efforts.
What court will consider the criminality of aerial bombardment by
U.S. aircraft of defenseless civilians, their housing, water
systems, power plants, factories, office buildings, schools,
hospitals, which take thousands of lives directly and causes
billions of dollars of property damages in Belgrade, Nis, Novi Sad
and scores of other cities, towns and villages? What threat to
peace continues from the U.S. bombing of the Chinese Embassy?
Who will be held accountable for the devastation of Pristina by
NATO planes, or the attacks on refugee columns in Kosovo and
Metohia? Is the U.S. use of cluster bombs exploding razor sharp
metal fragments over an area as large as a soccer field in the
courtyard at the hospital in Nis no crime? Will the Security
Council act to prevent and punish the use of depleted uranium by
the U.S. which is as indiscriminate in its radiation as the air, the
water, the soil and food hain it touches and contaminates for
millions of years?
International law accepts bombing of defenseless civilian
populations by a militarily advanced technology that can destroy a
country without even setting foot on its soil because supper
power controls international prosecutions and determines
violations. The dominant element in modern military power is
mass destruction. Victors are nations with the greatest capacity
for mass destruction. This places civilian populations at maximum
peril infrastructure supporting civilian life, buildings, water, power,
transportation, communication, food production, storage and
distribution, health care, schools, churches, mosques,
synagogues, foreign embassies were the direct object of U.S.
aerial and missile attacks. Several thousands of civilians were
killed directly and many more indirectly. The U.S. claims it had
159 casualties, a third from friendly fire, none from combat.
In 1998, the U.S. directed 21 Tomahawk Cruise missiles from
international waters to destroy the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant
in Khartoum, Sudan which provided more than half the medicines
available for a people who are very poor and have been unable to
replace that supply. The U.S. continues to support insurrection in
the South of Sudan and threaten Sudan with prosecution in an ad
hoc international criminal tribunal.
NATO does not claim it prevented violence within Kosovo and
Metohia among the Serbian, ethnic Albanian and other peoples. In
fact, NATO accelerated that violence. It bombed Serbia for 79
days targeting civilians and citizens destroying billions of dollars
worth of civilian facilities, using illegal weapons including cluster
bombs, destroying the civilian Serbian TV and radio buildings. It
bombed Kosovo and Metohia heaviest of all, destroying most of
Pristina, killing thousands of Albanians, Muslims, Serbs, Romany,
Turks and others, and causing hundreds of thousands of people to
flee from Kosovo and Metohia. Damage to the Yugoslavia military
was negligible. In the summer of 2001 the U.S. continues to use
cluster bombs in northern and southern Iraq which it attacks on
most days.
And in 1999 when the U.S. and NATO countries came into
Kosovo and Metohia, as a "security force", they refused to
intervene on the ground to protect people who were endangered in
the province.
There will be no remedy or relief for Serbian victims of atrocities,
some 500.000 purged by Croatia with the approval, if not on
instructions of the U.S., forever from their homes in Krajina, the
more than 330.000 permanently purged from Kosovo and Metohia
since the cease fire in 1999, or for the thousands of Serbs,
Romany and others killed by the U.S. and NATO bombing
assaults, or by the U.S.-supported terrorist organization, the so
called KLA, before, during and after the assaults. The
Macedonians killed, injured and driven from their homes by U.S.
condoned if not instigated KLA aggressions which threaten civil
war in Macedonia and general war in the Balkans will not lead the
Security Council to create a Court to prosecute the perpetrators.
Major Powers Are Not Accountable For Their
Actions Which Cause War, Insurrection
And Violence Within Targeted Countries.
There will be no accountability by the U.S., Germany and other
nations whose acts and pressures forced the break-up of
Yugoslavia, stripping Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and
attempted stripping of parts of Serbia like Kosovo and Metohia.
The U.S. and several European nations have balkanized the region
in the most artificial and forced apartheid the Balkans, or any
other part of the world has ever known. Their acts have made
peace, stability and prosperity impossible. Economic viability of
small fragmented parts depends on foreign economic interests
intended to dominate and exploit the region. The new apartheid
leads to U.S. planned conflicts between the western Catholic
Croatians and the eastern Orthodox Serbs, creating conflict and a
wall between western and eastern Europe. More dangerous, it
sets the stage for violence, encouraging international conflicts
between Slavic peoples and Muslims to decimate and debilitate
the obstacles to the U.S. world order. Kosovo and Metohia, as a
part of Serbia, and Macedonia are current examples in a long list
of tragic and avoidable violence between Muslims and Slavs,
which has occurred to different extents in Afghanistan, Dagestan,
Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and Bosnia.
A Federal Republic Of Balkan States Long
Set Against Each Other By Foreign Powers
Was Formed To Established Peace, Cooperation
And Prosperity.
The idea of Yugoslavia, a Balkan federation to heal divisions and
provide a better chance for living together in peace and prosperity,
was seen as important in the years after World War I as a means
to peace. While the idea floundered between the two worst wars
in history, it worked with remarkable success after World War II
in which it was ravaged, but unconquered. An independent and
unified Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a long term
successful solution for south Slavic peoples. It was a bulwark of
the Non Aligned Movement. With the collapse of the Soviet and
Eastern bloc economy it was the remaining socialist government
threatening capitalist control of Europe. With its mixed market
economy it offered an example to former Eastern bloc countries
for revival of their economic and political independence. With a
successful, functioning Federal Republic of Yugoslavia there was
living proof history had not ended, that more than one economic
system was possible.
After the collapse of the Eastern bloc economy a greater Balkan
federation a south eastern European Union was seen by many in
the region as the means to prevent economic exploitation, avoid
violence and develop a strong and independent political, social and
economic region.
Foreign capital and the geopolitical interests of the U.S.
considered this a dangerous obstacle to their plans for the new
world order, globalization, new colonialism.
The United States Having Demonized
Yugoslavia Attacks It With Impunity
And Persecutes Its Leadership.
The U.S. mercilessly bombed Yugoslavia for 79 day. It tried to
assassinate me by bombing my home, offices and other places,
where it believed I might be. It attempted to kill Libya's head of
State Muammar Qaddafi in its 1986 raid on Tripoli and Iraqi
president Saddam Hussein on numerous occasions beginning in
1991, including its 1993 cruise missile attack on the Al Rashid in
Baghdad at a time it believed he would be there meeting
international Islamic leaders.
Through economic sanctions, the most extreme and overt form of
forced impoverishment and economic assault, the U.S. has
coerced the Security Council into complicity in the longest
deadliest and cruelest genocide of the last decade, the sanctions
against its enemy Iraq which have killed at least 2 million people,
the majority children. The United States has forced economic
sanctions against Yugoslavia, severely damaging its civilian
economy and eroding its will to independence.
Can a criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia which ignores pervasive
violence by the U.S. and diverts public awareness from United
States conduct and legitimatizes by silent acceptance aerial and
missile assaults on civilians and illegal weapons use against one
country after another, making its repetition expected before it
occurs, contribute to the hope for the rule of law, justice or peace?
The United States, itself, immune from control, or prosecution and
above the law, uses its power to cause the persecution of
enemies it selects to terrorize and further demonize. It
manufactures and sells arms to chosen nations, to groups seeking
to overthrow governments it opposes, uses illegal weapons
against defenseless people with impunity, continues to
consolidate and expand its near monopoly of nuclear weapons and
sophisticated rocketry, spends trillion on unilateral protection
from Star Wars assuring a continued arms race while poverty
overwhelms billions, hunger cripples millions, starvation takes
hundreds of thousands of lives and AIDS spreads among poor
nations.
It cripples international environmental protection, undermines
control of nuclear weapons by threatening to withdraw from long
standing protections of the ABM and Non Proliferation treaties. It
refuses to ratify treaties to protect life from land mines which it
continues to manufacture, sell and deploy. It threatens to
undermine a treaty controlling biological and chemical warfare.
And the United States regularly engages in covert operations and
violent military interventions in other nations in violation of their
sovereignty and law.
The so called ICTY is not just another arrow in the arsenal of the
United States with which it persecutes and demonizes enemies
and corrupts international law. The ICTY celebrates inequality in
the rule of law using criminal sanctions to destroy selected
leaders and governments.
It is poisonous arrow destructive of the foundations of peace
among independent nations of equal rights and dignity.
3. THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
TRIBUNAL FOR FORMER YUGOSLAVIA IS
INCAPABLE OF PROTECTING
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, OR PROVIDING
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
Such an ad hoc Tribunal has a temporary and limited purpose
without helpful precedent, common tradition or relevant
experience. It lacks power to enforce orders, or compel the
disclosure of evidence and presence of witnesses, particularly for
the defense.
It is not capable of finding facts fairly, or defining and applying
legal principles equally. It cannot do justice.
The statutory mandate for the ICTY makes it hostile to concern
for the rights of those accused before it, because it is told the
crimes charged have occurred and the accused have been
demonized.
The right to assistance of counsel, so firmly established in
international law, has been denied and frustrated by the Tribunal
even in its most prominent cases. The Registry denied to me the
right to consult with lawyers of my choice on legal matters for
several weeks after my arraignment.
The Registrar wrote that for the one attorney who visited me
during that time and for only two hours, it would have been
''inappropriate'' to discuss the case because the conversation
was monitored and confidences would be violated. Lawyers from
Yugoslavia I ask to consult, with one exception, a monitored two
hours visit, were still denied approval and visas to enter the
Netherlands seven weeks after my arraignment.
Instead I was held in solitary confinement. I was able to visit my
wife only after more than two weeks imprisonment and then only
through sound proof glass using monitored telephones. She was
prohibited from speaking with the press and kept isolated from all
public contacts while in the Netherlands, a virtual prisoner in her
hotel room, except as she traveled between the airport, the prison
and the hotel.
The Ad Hoc Tribunal Is Intended To Demonize
And Destroy, Not To Fairly Determine Facts,
Protect Rights Of The Accessed, And Apply
Legal Principles Equally.
Unfair phenomena is inherent in the purpose and the nature of
temporary ad hoc tribunal, struggling without personnel who are
part of a legal tradition, far removed from the place the accused
came from and the events occurred where the court is charged by
its creator not to presume innocence, but that terrible crimes have
occurred and the accused are from the group that committed them.
They do this to protect thr real criminals, the NATO leaders who
killed thousands of innocent people in NATO's criminal
aggression.
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
SEI UN APPASSIONATO DI PC, SOFTWARE E PERIFERICHE?
Da oggi tutte le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta eMail
http://www.domeus.it/ad3463520/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
del Tribunale "ad hoc" dell'Aia, della quale e' stata impedita
la lettura pubblica durante l'udienza del 30 agosto:
la versione in inglese in fondo a questo messaggio.
English text at the bottom
---
STENOGRAM
sa pojavljivanja predsednika Slobodana Milosevica
pred "Haskim tribunalom", 30. avgusta 2001. godine
u Hagu
SUDIJA MEJ:
Gospodine Milosevicu, postoje li kakva pitanja koja biste vi zeleli
izneti u vezi sa vasim slucajem ili u vezi sa vasim psihickim i
fizickim stanjem? Vi ste upoznati sa pravilnikom koji ne dopusta
nikakve govore u ovom trenutku. Vi cete imati priliku za to,
odnosno priliku da se branite kada za to dodje vreme, no, ukoliko
postoje neka pitanja koja zelite izneti u vezi sa vasim slucajem,
prilika je da to ucinite.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Kao prvo, zeleo bih da znam da li cu moci da govorim ili cete
iskljuciti mikrofon kao sto ste to ucinili poslednji put?
SUDIJA MEJ:
Gospodine Milosevicu, ukoliko budete postovali pravila imacete
mogucnosti da govorite, ako se budete drzali relevantnih pitanja
imacete mogucnosti da govorite.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Da, to bi bilo moje sledece pitanje. Ja bih hteo da kazem da je to
ilegalan sud.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Vi ste vec izneli prigovor po tom pitanju. Da li vi sada trazite da
vam se odobri mogucnost da se Vecu obratite usmeno u vezi s tim
pitanjem?
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Za usmeno izlaganje trebace mi 40 minuta. Posto mi to ne
dozvoljavate, ja cu to izneti u pisanom obliku. Moji saradnici ce to
izneti u stampi ukoliko vi meni ne dozvolite da to javno sada
iznesem.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Ukoliko vi to ucinite u pisanom obliku to ce biti objavljeno kada za
to dodje vreme. Ako vec sada to imate napisano onda ce biti
daleko prikladnije da se to obradi na taj nacin.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Da, u redu! Ali potrebno je da razgovaramo kao civilizovane
osobe. Ne na nacin da mi iskljucujete mikrofone, ili da se koristi
bilo kakva sila. Potrebno je da se razumemo kada je rec o tome sta
je moguce, a sto nije. Dakle, kad ne dopustate usmeno, ja cu to
predati vama u pisanom obliku.
SUDIJA MEJ:
U redu.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Ako dozvolite, jos bih komentarisao ono sto sam sada upravo cuo.
Cuo sam, naime, nesto vrlo zanimljivo, sto dokazuje ono sto su
vec rekli pre 3. jula u ovoj istoj prostoriji. Naime, da se radi o
jednoj laznoj optuznici. Ja sam optuzen 26. maja, 60-tog dana
NATO-ve agresije protiv Jugoslavije, dok sam ja branio svoju
zemlju. Dakle, dve i po godine su protekle od tog datuma, i mi smo
upravo sada culi da oni koji tuze nemaju dokaze, da oni ne mogu
dovrsiti svoju optuznicu. Dve i po godine je vrlo dugo vreme cak i
za kompletiranje jedne lazne optuznice, a ono sto smo mi upravo
culi je dokaz za to. Naravno, uzimajuci u obzir cinjenicu da ja ne
priznajem ovaj tribunal i da imam vrlo jasno misljenje koje
dokazuju pravne cinjenice, misljenje, naime, da je ovaj tribunal
nelegalan, ja ne vidim zasto bih se ja sada branio pred laznim
sudom na temelju jedne lazne optuznice. Dakle, to je jos jedno
objasnjenje koje sam zeleo da iznesem.
Ako mi dozvolite ja bih sada vama postavio neka pitanja koja se
ticu mojeg polozaja u jednom protivpravnom pritvoru.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Ne mozete postavljati pitanja. No, ukoliko zelite izneti nesto u
vezi sa tim, vi to mozete uciniti.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Po nalogu ove nelegalne institucije, ja sam u potpunoj izolaciji.
Moje pitanje s tim u vezi je zasto sam ja izolovan od svoje
porodice, zasto me moja porodica ne moze posetiti na isti nacin
kako to cine porodice drugih koji imaju tu mogucnost? Zasto se
prate posete moje porodice, zasto prisluskujete razgovore koje ja
vodim cak i sa mojim unukom koji je star samo dve i po godine?!
Zasto? Zasto cinite sve to? Zasto na tako grub nacin krsite moja
prava? Zasto sam izolovan od osoba koje bi zelele da me posete i
sa kojima imam potrebu da razgovaram, s kojima zelim da
razgovaram o raznoraznim pravnim aspektima mog polozaja u
ovom ilegalnom pritvoru.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Da zastanemo na trenutak. Pravila koja se ticu pritvora potpadaju
pod nadleznost sekretara Medjunarodnog suda. Ukoliko se
primenjuju na vas na nacin razlicit od drugih pritvorenika, mi cemo
se o tome raspitati. Samo trenutak.
Poteskoca koja se vezuje za advokate je sledeca. Vi, naime, jos
uvek niste odabrali odnosno imenovali advokata. A, pravila
dozvoljavaju samo posete od strane imenovanih advokata. Ja sada
zelim znati da li je vas stav da se vi zelite braniti sami, da ne
zelite da vam se imenuje advokat, ali zelite imati pristup pravnim
savetnicima. Da li bi to bio adekvatan rezime vaseg stava?
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Jasno je da ja imam pravo na kontakt sa razlicitim strucnjacima u
vezi sa razlicitim aspektima mog polozaja u protivpravnom
pritvoru. Osim toga, ja imam pravo kontakta sa advokatima koji se
bave mojim privatnim stvarima u Jugoslaviji. Isto tako imam pravo
na kontakt sa advokatima koji su angazovani u nekim
medjunarodnim organizacijama koje me podrzavaju. Ja imam pravo
na komuniciranje s tim ljudima, ne razumem kako to moze da se
primenjuje na diskriminatoran nacin. Koliko ja shvatam, pravni
sistem se zasniva na nepostojanju bilo kakve diskriminacije, a ja
sam diskriminisan od prvog dana od kada sam ovde.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Problem, gospodine Milosevicu, lezi u cinjenici da vi niste
imenovali advokata. Nase osoblje mora postovati pravila. Osoba
koja ima pravo na pravne posete je vas imenovani advokat. Ali vi
ste izneli dve stvari u vezi s kojima zelite primiti savet. Dakle, vi
zelite savet u vezi sa vasim polozajem ovde u ovom postupku, isto
tako, kada je rec o vasim stvarima, o vasim poslovima u
Jugoslaviji. Je li tako?
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Naravno, to je tako. I ja imam jos na umu citav niz drugih stvari u
vezi s kojima zelim da razgovaram sa osobama koje zele da me
posete i koje zele da sa mnom kontaktiraju.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Na prvom Vecu cu se o tome raspitati I obavestiti vas. I to cemo
uzeti u obzir.
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Trece pitanje je zasto sam ja izolovan od stampe?! Zasto mi se ne
dozvoljava nikakav kontakt? Vi me drzite u izolaciji, ja nemam
pravo na bilo kakav kontakt sa medijima. Cak ni telefonom koji mi
je za sada jedini na raspolaganju. Ovde su neki predstavnici
stampe i medija koji bi zeleli da znaju istinu. Ja mislim da niko ne
treba da se boji istine. S jedne strane, postoji citava ta masinerija
koju vi predstavljate, sve te tajne sluzbe, vojne organizacije, na
mojoj strani je jedino - istina. Ukoliko vi mene izolujete, ukoliko
mi onemogucavate kontakt sa stampom, onda je jasno da se ovde
radi o diskriminaciji. Vi cak ne mozete, na bilo koji nacin, da
nekoga uverite, da pravilno postupate u vezi sa postupkom koji
imate na umu.
I jos da vas podsetim, ja ne priznajem ovaj Medjunarodni tribunal,
smatram ga potpuno protivpravnim i nelegalnim. Sva ta pitanja
koja se ticu advokata i pravnog zastupanja su sasvim izlisna. Ja
sam video u stampi.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Gospodine Milosevicu, moramo ovde uneti reda. Samo trenutak.
Prvo, ono sto ste pokrenuli. Pitanje koje ste pokrenuli. Prema
pravilima pritvorske jedinice, ne postiji nikakav kontakt sa
medijima. Ta pravila se ne ticu samo vas. Ne radi se ni o kakvoj
diskriminaciji. Ta se pravila primenjuju na sve optuzenike koji su u
pritvoru. Sto se tice cinjenice da vi ne priznajete Medjunarodni
tribunal, mi smo to culi, i nema nikakve potrebe da se to ponavlja.
Postoji li jos nesto sto zelite izneti?
PREDSEDNIK SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC:
Koliko sam ja shvatio, oni se bave tim pitanjem protivzakonitosti
suda, nelegalnosti, dakle, to je pitanje nadleznosti. Svakom
advokatu na ovom svetu je jasno da se pitanje nadleznosti moze
pokrenuti pred svakom pravnom institucijom. Medjutim, vi niste
pravna institucija, vi ste politicko sredstvo.
SUDIJA MEJ:
Gospodine Milosevicu, mi necemo sada slusati ove politicke
argumente. Vi mozete da podnesete podnesak o nadleznosti, mi
cemo taj podnesak i razmotriti. Mi cemo podnesak razmotriti.
U redu, rasprava je zavrsena. A nastavicemo u ponedeljak 29.
oktobra.
Molimo ustanite.
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
---
What follows is the statement that president Milosevic was
not allowed to read when he appeared, August 30, before the
"tribunal" in the Hague.
STATEMENT
OF PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ON THE ILLEGITIMACY OF THE HAGUE
"TRIBUNAL"
There are three fatal legal flaws in the so called International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Each has disastrous
consequences for the human quest for peace, the rule of law,
democracy, truth and justice.
1. THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED
NATIONS DOES NOT EMPOWER THE
SECURITY COUNCIL TO CREATE A
CRIMINAL COURT
The U.N. Security Council has seized power it does not possess,
corrupting the Charter of the United Nations, placing itself above
the law and threatening "We Peoples of the United Nations" with
a lawless future in which a superpower employs the scourge of
war to have its way. Nothing in the history of the planning,
drafting, discussion, approval or ratifications of the U.N. Charter
implies, or is consistent with an intention to empower any body
created by, or under, the Charter to establish any criminal tribunal.
The words of the Charter and their textual inferences, the
structure and allocation of power and duties, including those in the
incorporated Statute for the International Court of Justice, all
negate the existence of any capacity under the Charter to ordain
criminal courts. The Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia is
illegitimate and its creation a corruption of the United Nations.
There would never have been a United Nations if its Charter
stated, or implied, that a criminal court could be created under its
authority. No one who believes in historical truth, or that words
have meaning can, after examining the history of its creation and
its text, contend that the Charter of the United Nations empowers
the Security Council to create a criminal court.
An International Criminal Court Can Be Created
Only By A Multinational Treaty, Or
Amendment To The Charter Of The United Nations
The national representatives ho have served on the Security
Council and in the General Assembly and the scholars, lawyers
and experts who have labored for more than thirty years to bring
into being an international criminal court have recognized that the
only lawful and binding way such a court can be created is by an
agreement among nations through a treaty agreed upon for that
purpose, or by amending the Charter of the United Nations under
its strict provisions regulating amendments to authorize, or
establish a court.
When an International Criminal Court was finally agreed upon in
July 1998 by 120 nations meeting in Rome, it was by treaty which
had been studied, drafted and debated for years. The United
States, the most powerful participant in that long process,
consistently sought to weaken the treaty to exempt U.S. leaders
and military personnel from prosecution before it. Having failed
the U.S. was then the most prominent and powerful of the handful
of nations that refused to sign. As of August 1, 2001 37 nations,
the Netherlands the most recent, had ratified the treaty.
The United States is vigorously trying to persuade, coerce, or
bribe nations not to ratify.
Creation Of The International Criminal Tribunal
For The Former Yugoslavia Was A Lawless Act Of
Political Expediency By The United States Designed
To Demonize And Destroy An Enemy And Frustrate
Creation Of A Legitimate International Criminal Tribunal
At the insistence of the U.S. the Security Council nearly fifty
years after it came into being forged a new and powerful weapon
capable of demonizing a nation and its people and depriving
individuals of their liberty for the rest of their lives and placed it
largely in the hands of the United States. The principal precedents
for such pseudo judicial actions over several millennia preceding
the creation of the U.N. are trials of leaders and soldiers of
vanquished populations by the victors in war, and courts used by
colonial powers to control and punish subjugated peoples. The
precedents are many and the violence and cruelty and hatred they
usually exposed and caused was extreme.
Unless It is Limited By The U.N. Charter And
International Law, The Security Council Can Do
Whatever It Chooses To Do
If it is not restrained by the United Nations Charter, the Security
Council can commit any act it desires disregarding all law. Early
proponents of United States world power claimed such unbridled
discretion for the Security Council publicly. Thus in 1950 John
Foster Dullas wrote:
"The Security Council is not a body that
merely enforces agreed law. It is a law unto
itself... No principles of law are laid down
to guide it, it can decide in accordance with
what it thinks is expedient."
If unchallenged, this concept of Security Council power means
that the most powerful international organ created by the Charter
of the United Nations "to end the scourge of war" is above all law,
domestic and international.
But absolute discretion is the very definition of lawlessness and
has been called "more destructive of freedom than any other of
man's inventions," by U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O.
Douglas. All rights of all nations, races, religions, cultures,
political parties and individuals are thereby subordinated to the
will of the Security Council, and the single superpower that too
often will dominate it. All but fifteen nations are excluded from
Security Council counsels. Each of the five permanent members
can veto its actions.
The Security Council is subject to domination by a single nation.
The representative of each member votes as instructed by the
national government that appoints him and to serve the interests
of that government, not as an international statesman serving all
peoples and the purposes for which the U.N. was created. The
Security Council is inaccessible, anonymous and less responsive
to democratic processes than any other international political
institution.
2. A ONE TIME, ONE EPISODE COURT
TARGETING ONE COUNTRY, CREATED
BY INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL POWER
TO SERVE ITS GEO-POLITICAL
INTERESTS IS INCAPABLE OF EQUALITY
AND CONDUCTIVE OF DIVISION AND
VIOLENCE
The illegitimate Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia corrupts
justice and law because it is incapable of acting equally among
nations, or within the politically targeted nation. It will increase
violence, division and the risk of war with neighboring nations and
peoples and within Yugoslavia among the segments of the society
the U.S. policy of balkanization of Former Yugoslavia has set
against each other and against the new government the U.S. has
installed for its own purposes. If the United Nations Charter had
authorized the Security Council to create criminal courts, it could
not create a court for one nation, or episode for political purposes,
to persecute selected groups, or persons and such a court is
incapable of equal justice under law. An ad hoc court violates the
most basic principles of all law. Equality is the mother of justice.
An international court established to prosecute acts in a single
nation and primarily, if not entirely, one limited group is pre
programmed to persecute incapable of equality.
If the Security Council can create a criminal court to prosecute
conduct in a single country like Yugoslavia, it can appoint a court
for any country, selecting enemies or political and economic
opportunities for targeting one at a time, while never exposing
itself, or those who comply with its wishes to such selective
prosecution. If the U.S., or any ally or client state it chose to
protect was the subject of a serious effort by the Security Council
to be honored with a criminal tribunal in its own name, the U.S.
would veto the threatened action.
A Court created only for crimes in one country is by definition
discriminatory, incapable of equal justice, a weapon against
chosen enemies, or antagonistic interests and war by other
means. If there is to be any international criminal court, it must
act equally as to all nations with none above the law. The ad hoc
tribunal for a single nation corrupts international law.
By its very nature, the ad hoc Tribunal can be created only after
the conduct the Security Council decides justifies creation of the
Court since there is no other excuse for its creation. It is in every
case ex post facto. This violates an ancient principle of law. It
also requires the Security Council, if there is to be a rational basis
for its action, to make some preliminary claim to finding of facts, a
task such a political body is not designed for, that inherently
incriminates a country, or faction by placing the imprimatur of the
Security Council of the United Nations on a political decision of
fact necessary to justify creation of the Tribunal. The very charge
of the Security Council - genocide, crimes against peace, war
crimes, or crimes against humanity demonized any person
thereafter accused.
The Selection Of A Nation For Prosecution
On Political Findings Of Genocide, War Crimes
And Crimes Against Humanity Creates
A Compulsion to Convict.
Investigators, prosecutors and administrative personnel who join
a temporary Tribunal to pursue allegations of humanities greatest
crimes against a people and leaders already demonized will feel
they have failed if there are not convictions. The very psychology
of the enterprise is persecutorial. Few judges appointed to serve
on a Tribunal created under such circumstances will feel free to
acquit any but the most marginal, or clearly mistaken, accused, or
to create an appearance of objectivity.
Powers That Create Ad Hoc International Criminal
Tribunals Divert Attention From Their Own
Offenses, Or Failures, Or Those Of Allies And
Their Political Surrogates While Continuing
To Inflect And Threaten Mass Destruction With Impunity.
The ad hoc Tribunal which targets a country is incapable of
prosecuting what may be greater crimes committed in the same
conflict, by a power, coalition ally or political agents that was and
remains a much greater source of violence and threat to peace.
Most often the power which forced the creation of the target
tribunal to further damage and demonize their enemy is shielded
from criticism by the avalanche of propaganda against the
accused supported by the appearance of United Nations neutrality
and peace making efforts.
What court will consider the criminality of aerial bombardment by
U.S. aircraft of defenseless civilians, their housing, water
systems, power plants, factories, office buildings, schools,
hospitals, which take thousands of lives directly and causes
billions of dollars of property damages in Belgrade, Nis, Novi Sad
and scores of other cities, towns and villages? What threat to
peace continues from the U.S. bombing of the Chinese Embassy?
Who will be held accountable for the devastation of Pristina by
NATO planes, or the attacks on refugee columns in Kosovo and
Metohia? Is the U.S. use of cluster bombs exploding razor sharp
metal fragments over an area as large as a soccer field in the
courtyard at the hospital in Nis no crime? Will the Security
Council act to prevent and punish the use of depleted uranium by
the U.S. which is as indiscriminate in its radiation as the air, the
water, the soil and food hain it touches and contaminates for
millions of years?
International law accepts bombing of defenseless civilian
populations by a militarily advanced technology that can destroy a
country without even setting foot on its soil because supper
power controls international prosecutions and determines
violations. The dominant element in modern military power is
mass destruction. Victors are nations with the greatest capacity
for mass destruction. This places civilian populations at maximum
peril infrastructure supporting civilian life, buildings, water, power,
transportation, communication, food production, storage and
distribution, health care, schools, churches, mosques,
synagogues, foreign embassies were the direct object of U.S.
aerial and missile attacks. Several thousands of civilians were
killed directly and many more indirectly. The U.S. claims it had
159 casualties, a third from friendly fire, none from combat.
In 1998, the U.S. directed 21 Tomahawk Cruise missiles from
international waters to destroy the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant
in Khartoum, Sudan which provided more than half the medicines
available for a people who are very poor and have been unable to
replace that supply. The U.S. continues to support insurrection in
the South of Sudan and threaten Sudan with prosecution in an ad
hoc international criminal tribunal.
NATO does not claim it prevented violence within Kosovo and
Metohia among the Serbian, ethnic Albanian and other peoples. In
fact, NATO accelerated that violence. It bombed Serbia for 79
days targeting civilians and citizens destroying billions of dollars
worth of civilian facilities, using illegal weapons including cluster
bombs, destroying the civilian Serbian TV and radio buildings. It
bombed Kosovo and Metohia heaviest of all, destroying most of
Pristina, killing thousands of Albanians, Muslims, Serbs, Romany,
Turks and others, and causing hundreds of thousands of people to
flee from Kosovo and Metohia. Damage to the Yugoslavia military
was negligible. In the summer of 2001 the U.S. continues to use
cluster bombs in northern and southern Iraq which it attacks on
most days.
And in 1999 when the U.S. and NATO countries came into
Kosovo and Metohia, as a "security force", they refused to
intervene on the ground to protect people who were endangered in
the province.
There will be no remedy or relief for Serbian victims of atrocities,
some 500.000 purged by Croatia with the approval, if not on
instructions of the U.S., forever from their homes in Krajina, the
more than 330.000 permanently purged from Kosovo and Metohia
since the cease fire in 1999, or for the thousands of Serbs,
Romany and others killed by the U.S. and NATO bombing
assaults, or by the U.S.-supported terrorist organization, the so
called KLA, before, during and after the assaults. The
Macedonians killed, injured and driven from their homes by U.S.
condoned if not instigated KLA aggressions which threaten civil
war in Macedonia and general war in the Balkans will not lead the
Security Council to create a Court to prosecute the perpetrators.
Major Powers Are Not Accountable For Their
Actions Which Cause War, Insurrection
And Violence Within Targeted Countries.
There will be no accountability by the U.S., Germany and other
nations whose acts and pressures forced the break-up of
Yugoslavia, stripping Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and
attempted stripping of parts of Serbia like Kosovo and Metohia.
The U.S. and several European nations have balkanized the region
in the most artificial and forced apartheid the Balkans, or any
other part of the world has ever known. Their acts have made
peace, stability and prosperity impossible. Economic viability of
small fragmented parts depends on foreign economic interests
intended to dominate and exploit the region. The new apartheid
leads to U.S. planned conflicts between the western Catholic
Croatians and the eastern Orthodox Serbs, creating conflict and a
wall between western and eastern Europe. More dangerous, it
sets the stage for violence, encouraging international conflicts
between Slavic peoples and Muslims to decimate and debilitate
the obstacles to the U.S. world order. Kosovo and Metohia, as a
part of Serbia, and Macedonia are current examples in a long list
of tragic and avoidable violence between Muslims and Slavs,
which has occurred to different extents in Afghanistan, Dagestan,
Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and Bosnia.
A Federal Republic Of Balkan States Long
Set Against Each Other By Foreign Powers
Was Formed To Established Peace, Cooperation
And Prosperity.
The idea of Yugoslavia, a Balkan federation to heal divisions and
provide a better chance for living together in peace and prosperity,
was seen as important in the years after World War I as a means
to peace. While the idea floundered between the two worst wars
in history, it worked with remarkable success after World War II
in which it was ravaged, but unconquered. An independent and
unified Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a long term
successful solution for south Slavic peoples. It was a bulwark of
the Non Aligned Movement. With the collapse of the Soviet and
Eastern bloc economy it was the remaining socialist government
threatening capitalist control of Europe. With its mixed market
economy it offered an example to former Eastern bloc countries
for revival of their economic and political independence. With a
successful, functioning Federal Republic of Yugoslavia there was
living proof history had not ended, that more than one economic
system was possible.
After the collapse of the Eastern bloc economy a greater Balkan
federation a south eastern European Union was seen by many in
the region as the means to prevent economic exploitation, avoid
violence and develop a strong and independent political, social and
economic region.
Foreign capital and the geopolitical interests of the U.S.
considered this a dangerous obstacle to their plans for the new
world order, globalization, new colonialism.
The United States Having Demonized
Yugoslavia Attacks It With Impunity
And Persecutes Its Leadership.
The U.S. mercilessly bombed Yugoslavia for 79 day. It tried to
assassinate me by bombing my home, offices and other places,
where it believed I might be. It attempted to kill Libya's head of
State Muammar Qaddafi in its 1986 raid on Tripoli and Iraqi
president Saddam Hussein on numerous occasions beginning in
1991, including its 1993 cruise missile attack on the Al Rashid in
Baghdad at a time it believed he would be there meeting
international Islamic leaders.
Through economic sanctions, the most extreme and overt form of
forced impoverishment and economic assault, the U.S. has
coerced the Security Council into complicity in the longest
deadliest and cruelest genocide of the last decade, the sanctions
against its enemy Iraq which have killed at least 2 million people,
the majority children. The United States has forced economic
sanctions against Yugoslavia, severely damaging its civilian
economy and eroding its will to independence.
Can a criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia which ignores pervasive
violence by the U.S. and diverts public awareness from United
States conduct and legitimatizes by silent acceptance aerial and
missile assaults on civilians and illegal weapons use against one
country after another, making its repetition expected before it
occurs, contribute to the hope for the rule of law, justice or peace?
The United States, itself, immune from control, or prosecution and
above the law, uses its power to cause the persecution of
enemies it selects to terrorize and further demonize. It
manufactures and sells arms to chosen nations, to groups seeking
to overthrow governments it opposes, uses illegal weapons
against defenseless people with impunity, continues to
consolidate and expand its near monopoly of nuclear weapons and
sophisticated rocketry, spends trillion on unilateral protection
from Star Wars assuring a continued arms race while poverty
overwhelms billions, hunger cripples millions, starvation takes
hundreds of thousands of lives and AIDS spreads among poor
nations.
It cripples international environmental protection, undermines
control of nuclear weapons by threatening to withdraw from long
standing protections of the ABM and Non Proliferation treaties. It
refuses to ratify treaties to protect life from land mines which it
continues to manufacture, sell and deploy. It threatens to
undermine a treaty controlling biological and chemical warfare.
And the United States regularly engages in covert operations and
violent military interventions in other nations in violation of their
sovereignty and law.
The so called ICTY is not just another arrow in the arsenal of the
United States with which it persecutes and demonizes enemies
and corrupts international law. The ICTY celebrates inequality in
the rule of law using criminal sanctions to destroy selected
leaders and governments.
It is poisonous arrow destructive of the foundations of peace
among independent nations of equal rights and dignity.
3. THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
TRIBUNAL FOR FORMER YUGOSLAVIA IS
INCAPABLE OF PROTECTING
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, OR PROVIDING
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
Such an ad hoc Tribunal has a temporary and limited purpose
without helpful precedent, common tradition or relevant
experience. It lacks power to enforce orders, or compel the
disclosure of evidence and presence of witnesses, particularly for
the defense.
It is not capable of finding facts fairly, or defining and applying
legal principles equally. It cannot do justice.
The statutory mandate for the ICTY makes it hostile to concern
for the rights of those accused before it, because it is told the
crimes charged have occurred and the accused have been
demonized.
The right to assistance of counsel, so firmly established in
international law, has been denied and frustrated by the Tribunal
even in its most prominent cases. The Registry denied to me the
right to consult with lawyers of my choice on legal matters for
several weeks after my arraignment.
The Registrar wrote that for the one attorney who visited me
during that time and for only two hours, it would have been
''inappropriate'' to discuss the case because the conversation
was monitored and confidences would be violated. Lawyers from
Yugoslavia I ask to consult, with one exception, a monitored two
hours visit, were still denied approval and visas to enter the
Netherlands seven weeks after my arraignment.
Instead I was held in solitary confinement. I was able to visit my
wife only after more than two weeks imprisonment and then only
through sound proof glass using monitored telephones. She was
prohibited from speaking with the press and kept isolated from all
public contacts while in the Netherlands, a virtual prisoner in her
hotel room, except as she traveled between the airport, the prison
and the hotel.
The Ad Hoc Tribunal Is Intended To Demonize
And Destroy, Not To Fairly Determine Facts,
Protect Rights Of The Accessed, And Apply
Legal Principles Equally.
Unfair phenomena is inherent in the purpose and the nature of
temporary ad hoc tribunal, struggling without personnel who are
part of a legal tradition, far removed from the place the accused
came from and the events occurred where the court is charged by
its creator not to presume innocence, but that terrible crimes have
occurred and the accused are from the group that committed them.
They do this to protect thr real criminals, the NATO leaders who
killed thousands of innocent people in NATO's criminal
aggression.
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
SEI UN APPASSIONATO DI PC, SOFTWARE E PERIFERICHE?
Da oggi tutte le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta eMail
http://www.domeus.it/ad3463520/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...