1. Captain Dragan testimony at UN Tribunal: Prosecution witness
supports Milosevic (Vera Martinovic)
2. SLOBODA Appeal, 20/1/2003
=== 1 ===
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850566/posts
Captain Dragan testimony at UN Tribunal
Prosecution witness supports Milosevic
Jurist.com | Feb 22, 2003 | Vera Martinovic
Posted on 02/24/2003 8:18 AM PST by vooch
The story of Dragan Vasiljkovic, alias Captain Dragan, is a very
simple one: he went twice to Krajina, first time in April
1991 when he was under the command of the Krajina Police; in August he
was expelled by Babic.
The second time he went there after the Croats attacked UNPA zones
(Miljevac Plateau), in a car with two other men
and they put themselves at the disposal of the Krajina Army, because
he 'couldn't calmly walk about the Belgrade
streets while all that was happening'. His mission both times was to
help train volunteers and to participate in combat
missions with his unit, deeply behind the enemy lines but few times
also in direct battles (e.g. taking over of Glina). His
motives: a Serb patriot living in Australia and with a considerable
military expertise, not on strategic but on tactical
level, wanting to help.
He denied the slander of the Army Intelligence General Vasiljevic
against his State Intelligence (SB) rivals, that he was
brought by the SB: 'he either lies, or he's absolutely incompetent'
and 'there was such a fantastic, open animosity
between the Army and the State Service' that he noticed. Nobody
invited nor sent him there, only one Sasa Medakovic
helped his arrival, a local guy who lived, worked and got killed in
Krajina.
His training camp in Golubic near Knin was his sole responsibility,
nobody but him was in charge. He was appointed
there by Milan Martic, with the consent of Babic. He gave a short
evaluation of both men: Babic 'never woke up before
2-3 p.m., his word meant nothing; his nickname was Titic=Little Tito;
he opposed both peace plans. Martic was 'an
honourable man, a man as good as his word'. He explained that
'personal vanity with the Serbs could be an important
issue, capable of exceeding national interests'.
He put things in proportion, both numerically (his unit numbered 21
men, called kninja, the name a fusion of 'Knin'
and 'Ninja'; the volunteers from Serbia 'could have been counted with
the fingers of one hand') and historically (local
Serbs were genuinely afraid of the resurrection of the Fascism in CRO:
'50 years is not ancient history, some people
were still alive and could tell').
His unit avoided local Croat civilians: 'I had extremely sparse
contacts with the Croat civilians, being aware they would
not be overjoyed to meet an armed Serb'; 'extraordinary protective
measures were being taken toward local Croatian
families, the investigators must have these data from the UNPROFOR'.
He personally arrested some Serb suspects for
alleged crimes: 'there were some incidents', 'the general attitude was
- arrest and put to trial, which I did within my
zone of responsibility'; 'they were members of the local TO, I was
reported of a crime, I never saw no corpses, I
disarmed these men, locked them away and gave the key to Martic, no
follow-up because I left for Belgrade soon'. He
wanted to 'help the Tribunal who was never in Krajina' and speaking
from his own 12-year experience of working with
victims, he clarified 'it was almost impossible to send an order to
commit crimes, because in the chain of command
there would always be a normal person who would stop it'. More
probable was the opposite direction and in order to
investigate 'it is more important to start from the victim than from
the top.' He denied any knowledge of any crimes
ordered by the Krajina authorities.
He gave an eye-witness account for the benefit of the judges: 'Since
I've lived in the West, in Serbia and in Krajina, I
can understand how difficult it is for this other side to understand
the reappearance of that Ustasa vampire, for those
villagers living sometimes on the upper floor of their houses with
their sheep below, waking up one morning not as a
constituent people anymore, but as a helpless minority again
threatened with slaughter and expulsion'.
He did not change his testimony during the cross-examination, he
merely clarified gross misinterpretations made by
the Prosecution and the media.
He was a political opponent to Milosevic, he avoided meeting him in
public, 'we met by chance once entering the
Military Academy Hospital when we exchanged courtesy salutations and
the second time when we met here, at this theatre show. He denied any
knowledge of orders coming from Milosevic to perpetrate any crimes,
'if I had such knowledge, as your political opponent I would have done
everything to expose you and to remove you from office'.
During that infamous celebration that was videoed he left earlier to
avoid staying at lunch with Milosevic. He even
became a member of Draskovic's SPO and his 'frame of mind was always
that of the opposition'; the same sentiment
that he nurtures 'for those pawns that are currently in power.'
He was and is a personal friend of Frenki Simatovic, who went to
Krajina few times hiding it from his superiors, trying
to help, and organizing much later the Captain's Fund to receive 20
computers (that was all the 'Security Service of
Serbia involvement'). Contrary to allegations, Frenki was never a
Milosevic man, 'truly, it was impossible to connect
the two of you in any way; he was a professional, an anti-terrorist
agent'. The Captain was never a member nor a
hireling to the Service, except one fee of 2,200 dinars that he
received for supervision of an exercise and they
subsequently talked about the possibility of hiring him, which didn't
come true. He never received any orders from
them. When he was forced by Babic to leave, he left his unit saying
'you should listen to what Frenki has to say',
meaning listen to his explanation of the sudden departure, and not to
his command. Few of his people went to Serbia
with him, some were subsequently admitted to the JSO ('I personally
asked Frenki to admit them, to keep them from
the street, and they had valuable skills; but there were no more than
15 people; I believe the Tribunal is under
impression this is an army that's being discussed').
There were no units from Serbia in Krajina. There were 4 people from
the Security Service of Serbia in all who ever
visited Krajina, each of them no more than once or twice, the task
being 'intelligence data gathering', anything more
was practically impossible 'having Babic as the opponent.'
The relationship between his unit and all Krajina forces on one side
and the JNA on the other was 'almost
hostile'. "We had provided no info to them. They were between the two
sides [Croats and Serbs] and we didn't
know what their reaction would be. They kept the two sides apart even
more scrupulously than the UNPROFOR." When asked about the Croatian
attacks against the JNA, the Captain said: "They only fought back; if
I were in their place, I would have done it much more ferociously; I
believe the JNA didn't fought back enough."
When he arrived in Krajina, the clashes were going on for almost a
year and there were more than enough weapons to
go around: 'Territorial Defence depots, stealing from the JNA, what
the UNPROFOR left for the Croats, and we
captured in battles more than we needed.' There were more weapons
coming from Krajina to Belgrade than the other way around.
The only thing coming were some hunting rifles through private
channels. Re heavy weaponry, the Captain recalled
'one trophy 50 mm cannon from WW2 that a local Serb has been keeping
through all these years in battle condition;
perhaps somebody should ask why.' There was financial help from
Serbia, of course, but no weapons, he only received
'one piece as a gift, a pistol CZ-99 [a great Magnum-type handgun,
popular also in the US, made by Zastava].
Captain Dragan's sole purpose in the courtroom was to tell his angle
of the story and to berate and spit on 'this
institution' along the way: when he was asked about one wounded
Arkan's man who stopped receiving help from his
Fund because he started to receive support from the Belgrade
municipality (oh, the crime!), the Captain sneered that
'the Law on basic rights of all the war invalids was adopted, it was
in all the newspapers, I don't see any significant
discovery here'.
He taught the judges that 'a Secret Service operates secretly, if it
were a public service it would be called a
Public Service'. He informed them 'my unit was public, we had a
headquarters, a flag, I don't see a point in
these questions'. He ridiculed the Greater Serbia notion as
'propaganda, a sheer stupidity or else a jest or a
comedy', which could be considered as true 'only by a malicious man'
and he pointed out that during that infamous celebration of the
'secret' video, with the Serbian Security and the Serbian President,
'a Yugoslav anthem was being played'.
He wondered at the sheer waste of time and effort here: 'I can't
believe that so many educated and serious people seriously consider
the presence of 4 Security people in Krajina as being significant,
there were thousands of European observers there' .
He explained his disdain and loss of patience with the proceedings in
The Hague: 'I've been here for 2 weeks already,
perhaps I'm a bit on the edge of my nerves already, but this is all so
over-exaggerated, that it seems there's no further
purpose for my taking part in it'.
Why was he summoned as the witness to the Prosecution in the first
place is baffling. Maybe they just wanted to
introduce as 'evidence' those ample records of his 'Captain Dragan
Fund', existing for more than 12 years and with
over 300,000 donors (private persons as well as State bodies): 11 CDs
with some 67,000 files of those helped financially,
families of wounded and killed. Yes, that must be it, they want to
further 'prove' where all these men fought using the
certificates signed by their commanders and to prosecute them,
perhaps.
---
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850585/posts
Part 2 Captain Dragan vs. Milosevic - UN Tribunal
Jurist.com | Feb 23, 2003 | Vera Martinovic
Posted on 02/24/2003 8:39 AM PST by vooch
Part 2 of 2
Milosevic revealed to the Captain that he was listed by the
Prosecution 'as the protected witness B-073', which he never
required himself and which triggered a lengthy discussion among the
judges and amici as a practice of making a rule out of
the exception and actually forcing the protected witness status onto
the witnesses.
Dragan also refused to sign a statement to the effect that what was
said during the investigation or testimony can not be used
against him. He confirmed to have received some EUR 4,000 towards his
travelling expenses and the hotel accommodation,
but 'you do not seriously think I could be bought for that kind of
money?'.
The examination-in-chief by Dermot Groome consisted almost entirely of
making the Captain read some reports not even
connected with Krajina, where volunteers were being vaguely mentioned,
and asking him to comment, to which he would
answer that 'I wouldn't even know to point out where Ozren is on the
map, I don't know these people that you mention, I
have never even been in Bosnia...'
Seeing a futility of this, the Prosecution pulled out 'a secret
video', which the Captain ridiculed in the end.
Let's get one thing clear: that JSO unit of which the 'important'
video had been shown is not a paramilitary unit, it is a regular
police unit for special operations. When the word 'paramilitary' is
applied for civil wars in ex-YU, this simply means
unofficial volunteer units, who put themselves under the unified
command of the local Serb forces.
Therefore, when BBC News of 19 Feb. deftly put together such a yarn
that 'Milosevic... paying tribute to Serb paramilitaries
accused of ethnic cleansing', 'footage shot in a paramilitary camp',
and then continue immediately with 'Captain Dragan told
the judges Serb paramilitary did not act independently, but were part
of the security services, the army or the police', there are
three things amiss here: JSO was being pronounced a paramilitary unit
accused of something, in the next sentence they
switched to 'Serb paramilitary' meaning something entirely different
(volunteer units), but deliberately equating it, and the
words 'of Krajina' were omitted when speaking of who controls them, as
pointed out in Part I of this report. This is not
reporting, this is ice-skating laced with double meaning and gross
hinting. Of course volunteer units could not act
independently, but why jumping to conclusions about Serbia controlling
them, when that was not what the witness said nor meant?
So, BBC spewed this propaganda and even put it in a highlighted inbox,
not bothering to retract it the next day, when
Captain Dragan explained how his meaning was distorted.
Contrary to the belief of some off-hand session-watchers, Captain
Dragan was not a member of that JSO unit from the
video, never has been and was not at the time of this celebration (it
was 1997); he was an invited guest (as somebody who
originally helped train some of its members while they were not the
JSO members). Just like Milosevic was a guest, and both
were given a token dagger as a gift to remember the celebration by,
along with many veterans from other units who were also
present. And the tradition of protecting the Serbs, as evoked by
Franko Simatovic aka Frenki in his speech, applied to the
individual members of the unit, who were previously fighting in
various battlefields individually, before they joined the JSO.
The speech also considered many other units of the Serbs from CRO and
B&H, their training camps and their exploits, and in
his PR effort to create the image for the unit, Frenki tried to
establish the link to that tradition. The famous red berets, which
originally were being given to kninjas after they finished their
training course became a popular symbol, first throughout CRO
and B&H and then even in Serbia with the 23rd parachute brigade of the
Army and the JSO of the Police.
The Captain completely dismissed the importance of the video by
explaining this was merely 'a nice show for the
President and other high officials' to present the unit bigger and
stronger than it ever was (it never surpassed the size
of one company), the helicopter squadron mentioned were precisely 'two
small Gazelles and one ancient Bell from
the Viet Nam war; my friend from the US has a private fleet larger
than that'. Captain Dragan gave his fatherly
opinion to the judges: "I believe this video was being discussed much
too seriously here."
The amicus curiae Kay took only few minutes, questioning the Captain
mainly about the weapons that his unit had, as
opposed to Croatian units that he directly fought at Glina, Skabrnja
and Ljubovo: the Croats were the size of a brigade each
time, much better equipped and with armoured vehicles. The only
advantage the Captain had was the night-vision and
communication equipment, used for behind-the-lines incursions.
Then, it was time for the Prosecution to save something by re-direct
examination and, contrary to what the ICTY apologists
write, it was nowhere near brilliant: Groome's face got all red, he
was constantly being interrupted and corrected by judges
and admonished by Kay and the witness was beyond his reach.
When he desperately tried to prove his own witness was lying/being
hostile/not speaking good Serbian/was talking to Frenki
about his testimony, he amply proved something else: the Prosecution's
own technique of producing evidence by distortion.
In short: Captain Dragan stated he was told by Jovica Stanisic to
leave Krajina, and his first thought was that this came from
Milosevic. Upon reflection, he realized that he was being caught in
feuds between Babic and Martic, Babic wanting to seize
complete control, resenting the Captain as being 'a Martic man' and
forced him to leave, by slandering him in media with 'he
received money, finished the job and went away'. Stanisic just advised
him to better remove himself from these political
clashes, trying to protect him.
The Captain understood Babic had more authority than Milosevic and
that it was the former who forced him away. Poor
Groome tried to prove his witness crazy for stating such a stupidity
and a lengthy discussion developed, including even judges.
Milosevic spoke up, almost laughingly offering help to clear the mess:
the words missing were again 'in Krajina'.
Yes, Babic was more powerful and influential in Krajina than
Milosevic, so he was in a position to expel the Captain.
How desperate the Prosecution is, clutching to such a sliver.
This testimony revealed the sinister practice happening when
statements are being taken from the witnesses by the
Prosecution's investigators.
Captain Dragan gave his statement on 26-27-28 August 2001. But, when
Milosevic read out one paragraph from it,
the witness said he doesn't recall 'ever saying this'. The same
happened during the re-direct examination by
Groome. The problem is the following: there are no questions in these
statements, only the answers, packed together
continuously like a story and worded and interpreted by the
investigators, and not quoted verbatim.
This leaves them opened to misinterpretations, distortions, wild
editing and taking out of context.
Here's one example. Milosevic quoted the statement: "In my opinion,
the war effort was financed by the Serbian government,
but I have no proof of that." The Captain denied ever using the term
'war effort', he thought that 'the question probably was
whether any help was being sent, which of course was, and which was
insufficient in my opinion, but this is absolutely distorted.'
Milosevic took the opportunity to slap May, saying that such practice
is nothing new, that the value of statements concocted
on the basis of answers to God knows which questions is highly
dubious. May admitted that the audio recording doesn't exist
and that we have to be 'satisfied with the statements such as they
are'.
And when Groome pulled the same statement-reading in his re-direct,
the Captain vehemently denied the formulation again
and recognized the plot: that was the 'working version' of the
statement, for which the investigators told him they would
never use it, and there's another, revised version, signed recently.
"This is not correct. These are your formulations,
taken out from our conversation. We agreed this would never be used. I
don't accept this statement, but the revised
one, were the corrections have been made with Mr Sexton. I gave
another statement, because of too many mistakes.
This is a trick. I accept only the statement signed last week!" said
the Captain, waving this piece of paper.
The solution to the problem by May? Both statements were introduced as
evidence.
Captain Dragan and Milosevic chatted away the cross-examination almost
like friends, certainly in a way of two people
deeply aware what kind of false show they got themselves mixed up in.
Speaking of his encounter in Belgrade with Jovica
Stanisic, when he got an advice to get away from Babic-Martic
political games, the Captain admitted his first reaction was to
get angry with Milosevic for sending him such an advice ('I thought I
would get your support'), but instead of that he had to
leave. "And here they are accusing you of exactly the opposite; either
way, it's a no-win situation for you and I wouldn't want
to be in your shoes." Both men laughed.
Yet another Dubrovnik witness, this time an ITN journalist, one Paul
Davis, started to testify on Friday. This is becoming ridiculous.
On Monday there will be no session.
=== 2 ===
From: Vladimir Krsljanin
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 4:45 PM
SLOBODA/Freedom Association, Belgrade
Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, dear compatriots,
In the Hague, it is the Serbian history and future generations that
are put to trial, rather than any individual and Slobodan Milosevic
in particuilar. As you and the entire mankind know, that great son of
our people does not recognize the "court" that is tending to the
world's rulers and their brute force, and which undoubtedly is a
freak in the international legal system, whose sole purpose is to
ultimately demonize the Serbian people. The courage and resoluteness
of Slobodan Milosevic present a plea to all Serbian patriots to join
the struggle for preservation of the honor and dignity of the Serbian
people.
The struggle of Slobodan Milosevic for the truth, which reveals daily
that the allegations against him and the Serbian people are made up
of lies, is hindered by various obstructions whose goal is to twart
the trooth and conceal the crimes of others. By not recognizing the
court that runs this ignominious process, Slobodan Milosevic and his
defence are deprived, among other things, also of the financial
rights. That is yet another way to to prevent his moral struggle.
Such barriers exist not only among the mighty ones abroad, but also
among their obedient servants and vassals in our fatherland. Those
problems have become so serious that bringing the defence witnesses,
and the entire defence, have been jeopardized, even more so because
the Yugoslav state, or any official structure of the regime, shows no
interest in the successful and upright struggle for the truth about
Serbian nation.
This letter is a bid to you to close the ranks in the battle for
truth. It is for that reason that we appeal to you, and to all honest
people and their organizations, to support financially the defence of
Slobodan Milosevic and make possible this historical struggle for the
integrity, honor, pride and truth about our nation.
In this way, the National Committee for the Liberation of Slobodan
Milosevic, SLOBODA/Freedom Association, together with you, wishes to
help the great son of our people in this struggle.
Belgrade, January 20th, 2003
For SLOBODA/Freedom Association,
Bogoljub Bjelica, president
======================================
SLOBODA/Freedom Association,
National Committee for the Liberation of Slobodan Milosevic
Address: Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Phones: +381-11-630-206, +381-11-639-152
Fax: +381-11-630-549
Bank giro account
Intermediary:
ABS AG, Zurich, Switzerland
Swift code: UBSWCHZH
Account with:
Komercijalna banka AD,
Svetog Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift code: KOBBYUBG
Beneficiary:
Acc. # 5428-1246-16154-6
Name: Sloboda za svet slobodnih i ravnopravnih
Address: Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
(codes for different currencies: 978 - EUR, 840 - USD, 756 - CHF)
_________________________________________________________________
supports Milosevic (Vera Martinovic)
2. SLOBODA Appeal, 20/1/2003
=== 1 ===
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850566/posts
Captain Dragan testimony at UN Tribunal
Prosecution witness supports Milosevic
Jurist.com | Feb 22, 2003 | Vera Martinovic
Posted on 02/24/2003 8:18 AM PST by vooch
The story of Dragan Vasiljkovic, alias Captain Dragan, is a very
simple one: he went twice to Krajina, first time in April
1991 when he was under the command of the Krajina Police; in August he
was expelled by Babic.
The second time he went there after the Croats attacked UNPA zones
(Miljevac Plateau), in a car with two other men
and they put themselves at the disposal of the Krajina Army, because
he 'couldn't calmly walk about the Belgrade
streets while all that was happening'. His mission both times was to
help train volunteers and to participate in combat
missions with his unit, deeply behind the enemy lines but few times
also in direct battles (e.g. taking over of Glina). His
motives: a Serb patriot living in Australia and with a considerable
military expertise, not on strategic but on tactical
level, wanting to help.
He denied the slander of the Army Intelligence General Vasiljevic
against his State Intelligence (SB) rivals, that he was
brought by the SB: 'he either lies, or he's absolutely incompetent'
and 'there was such a fantastic, open animosity
between the Army and the State Service' that he noticed. Nobody
invited nor sent him there, only one Sasa Medakovic
helped his arrival, a local guy who lived, worked and got killed in
Krajina.
His training camp in Golubic near Knin was his sole responsibility,
nobody but him was in charge. He was appointed
there by Milan Martic, with the consent of Babic. He gave a short
evaluation of both men: Babic 'never woke up before
2-3 p.m., his word meant nothing; his nickname was Titic=Little Tito;
he opposed both peace plans. Martic was 'an
honourable man, a man as good as his word'. He explained that
'personal vanity with the Serbs could be an important
issue, capable of exceeding national interests'.
He put things in proportion, both numerically (his unit numbered 21
men, called kninja, the name a fusion of 'Knin'
and 'Ninja'; the volunteers from Serbia 'could have been counted with
the fingers of one hand') and historically (local
Serbs were genuinely afraid of the resurrection of the Fascism in CRO:
'50 years is not ancient history, some people
were still alive and could tell').
His unit avoided local Croat civilians: 'I had extremely sparse
contacts with the Croat civilians, being aware they would
not be overjoyed to meet an armed Serb'; 'extraordinary protective
measures were being taken toward local Croatian
families, the investigators must have these data from the UNPROFOR'.
He personally arrested some Serb suspects for
alleged crimes: 'there were some incidents', 'the general attitude was
- arrest and put to trial, which I did within my
zone of responsibility'; 'they were members of the local TO, I was
reported of a crime, I never saw no corpses, I
disarmed these men, locked them away and gave the key to Martic, no
follow-up because I left for Belgrade soon'. He
wanted to 'help the Tribunal who was never in Krajina' and speaking
from his own 12-year experience of working with
victims, he clarified 'it was almost impossible to send an order to
commit crimes, because in the chain of command
there would always be a normal person who would stop it'. More
probable was the opposite direction and in order to
investigate 'it is more important to start from the victim than from
the top.' He denied any knowledge of any crimes
ordered by the Krajina authorities.
He gave an eye-witness account for the benefit of the judges: 'Since
I've lived in the West, in Serbia and in Krajina, I
can understand how difficult it is for this other side to understand
the reappearance of that Ustasa vampire, for those
villagers living sometimes on the upper floor of their houses with
their sheep below, waking up one morning not as a
constituent people anymore, but as a helpless minority again
threatened with slaughter and expulsion'.
He did not change his testimony during the cross-examination, he
merely clarified gross misinterpretations made by
the Prosecution and the media.
He was a political opponent to Milosevic, he avoided meeting him in
public, 'we met by chance once entering the
Military Academy Hospital when we exchanged courtesy salutations and
the second time when we met here, at this theatre show. He denied any
knowledge of orders coming from Milosevic to perpetrate any crimes,
'if I had such knowledge, as your political opponent I would have done
everything to expose you and to remove you from office'.
During that infamous celebration that was videoed he left earlier to
avoid staying at lunch with Milosevic. He even
became a member of Draskovic's SPO and his 'frame of mind was always
that of the opposition'; the same sentiment
that he nurtures 'for those pawns that are currently in power.'
He was and is a personal friend of Frenki Simatovic, who went to
Krajina few times hiding it from his superiors, trying
to help, and organizing much later the Captain's Fund to receive 20
computers (that was all the 'Security Service of
Serbia involvement'). Contrary to allegations, Frenki was never a
Milosevic man, 'truly, it was impossible to connect
the two of you in any way; he was a professional, an anti-terrorist
agent'. The Captain was never a member nor a
hireling to the Service, except one fee of 2,200 dinars that he
received for supervision of an exercise and they
subsequently talked about the possibility of hiring him, which didn't
come true. He never received any orders from
them. When he was forced by Babic to leave, he left his unit saying
'you should listen to what Frenki has to say',
meaning listen to his explanation of the sudden departure, and not to
his command. Few of his people went to Serbia
with him, some were subsequently admitted to the JSO ('I personally
asked Frenki to admit them, to keep them from
the street, and they had valuable skills; but there were no more than
15 people; I believe the Tribunal is under
impression this is an army that's being discussed').
There were no units from Serbia in Krajina. There were 4 people from
the Security Service of Serbia in all who ever
visited Krajina, each of them no more than once or twice, the task
being 'intelligence data gathering', anything more
was practically impossible 'having Babic as the opponent.'
The relationship between his unit and all Krajina forces on one side
and the JNA on the other was 'almost
hostile'. "We had provided no info to them. They were between the two
sides [Croats and Serbs] and we didn't
know what their reaction would be. They kept the two sides apart even
more scrupulously than the UNPROFOR." When asked about the Croatian
attacks against the JNA, the Captain said: "They only fought back; if
I were in their place, I would have done it much more ferociously; I
believe the JNA didn't fought back enough."
When he arrived in Krajina, the clashes were going on for almost a
year and there were more than enough weapons to
go around: 'Territorial Defence depots, stealing from the JNA, what
the UNPROFOR left for the Croats, and we
captured in battles more than we needed.' There were more weapons
coming from Krajina to Belgrade than the other way around.
The only thing coming were some hunting rifles through private
channels. Re heavy weaponry, the Captain recalled
'one trophy 50 mm cannon from WW2 that a local Serb has been keeping
through all these years in battle condition;
perhaps somebody should ask why.' There was financial help from
Serbia, of course, but no weapons, he only received
'one piece as a gift, a pistol CZ-99 [a great Magnum-type handgun,
popular also in the US, made by Zastava].
Captain Dragan's sole purpose in the courtroom was to tell his angle
of the story and to berate and spit on 'this
institution' along the way: when he was asked about one wounded
Arkan's man who stopped receiving help from his
Fund because he started to receive support from the Belgrade
municipality (oh, the crime!), the Captain sneered that
'the Law on basic rights of all the war invalids was adopted, it was
in all the newspapers, I don't see any significant
discovery here'.
He taught the judges that 'a Secret Service operates secretly, if it
were a public service it would be called a
Public Service'. He informed them 'my unit was public, we had a
headquarters, a flag, I don't see a point in
these questions'. He ridiculed the Greater Serbia notion as
'propaganda, a sheer stupidity or else a jest or a
comedy', which could be considered as true 'only by a malicious man'
and he pointed out that during that infamous celebration of the
'secret' video, with the Serbian Security and the Serbian President,
'a Yugoslav anthem was being played'.
He wondered at the sheer waste of time and effort here: 'I can't
believe that so many educated and serious people seriously consider
the presence of 4 Security people in Krajina as being significant,
there were thousands of European observers there' .
He explained his disdain and loss of patience with the proceedings in
The Hague: 'I've been here for 2 weeks already,
perhaps I'm a bit on the edge of my nerves already, but this is all so
over-exaggerated, that it seems there's no further
purpose for my taking part in it'.
Why was he summoned as the witness to the Prosecution in the first
place is baffling. Maybe they just wanted to
introduce as 'evidence' those ample records of his 'Captain Dragan
Fund', existing for more than 12 years and with
over 300,000 donors (private persons as well as State bodies): 11 CDs
with some 67,000 files of those helped financially,
families of wounded and killed. Yes, that must be it, they want to
further 'prove' where all these men fought using the
certificates signed by their commanders and to prosecute them,
perhaps.
---
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850585/posts
Part 2 Captain Dragan vs. Milosevic - UN Tribunal
Jurist.com | Feb 23, 2003 | Vera Martinovic
Posted on 02/24/2003 8:39 AM PST by vooch
Part 2 of 2
Milosevic revealed to the Captain that he was listed by the
Prosecution 'as the protected witness B-073', which he never
required himself and which triggered a lengthy discussion among the
judges and amici as a practice of making a rule out of
the exception and actually forcing the protected witness status onto
the witnesses.
Dragan also refused to sign a statement to the effect that what was
said during the investigation or testimony can not be used
against him. He confirmed to have received some EUR 4,000 towards his
travelling expenses and the hotel accommodation,
but 'you do not seriously think I could be bought for that kind of
money?'.
The examination-in-chief by Dermot Groome consisted almost entirely of
making the Captain read some reports not even
connected with Krajina, where volunteers were being vaguely mentioned,
and asking him to comment, to which he would
answer that 'I wouldn't even know to point out where Ozren is on the
map, I don't know these people that you mention, I
have never even been in Bosnia...'
Seeing a futility of this, the Prosecution pulled out 'a secret
video', which the Captain ridiculed in the end.
Let's get one thing clear: that JSO unit of which the 'important'
video had been shown is not a paramilitary unit, it is a regular
police unit for special operations. When the word 'paramilitary' is
applied for civil wars in ex-YU, this simply means
unofficial volunteer units, who put themselves under the unified
command of the local Serb forces.
Therefore, when BBC News of 19 Feb. deftly put together such a yarn
that 'Milosevic... paying tribute to Serb paramilitaries
accused of ethnic cleansing', 'footage shot in a paramilitary camp',
and then continue immediately with 'Captain Dragan told
the judges Serb paramilitary did not act independently, but were part
of the security services, the army or the police', there are
three things amiss here: JSO was being pronounced a paramilitary unit
accused of something, in the next sentence they
switched to 'Serb paramilitary' meaning something entirely different
(volunteer units), but deliberately equating it, and the
words 'of Krajina' were omitted when speaking of who controls them, as
pointed out in Part I of this report. This is not
reporting, this is ice-skating laced with double meaning and gross
hinting. Of course volunteer units could not act
independently, but why jumping to conclusions about Serbia controlling
them, when that was not what the witness said nor meant?
So, BBC spewed this propaganda and even put it in a highlighted inbox,
not bothering to retract it the next day, when
Captain Dragan explained how his meaning was distorted.
Contrary to the belief of some off-hand session-watchers, Captain
Dragan was not a member of that JSO unit from the
video, never has been and was not at the time of this celebration (it
was 1997); he was an invited guest (as somebody who
originally helped train some of its members while they were not the
JSO members). Just like Milosevic was a guest, and both
were given a token dagger as a gift to remember the celebration by,
along with many veterans from other units who were also
present. And the tradition of protecting the Serbs, as evoked by
Franko Simatovic aka Frenki in his speech, applied to the
individual members of the unit, who were previously fighting in
various battlefields individually, before they joined the JSO.
The speech also considered many other units of the Serbs from CRO and
B&H, their training camps and their exploits, and in
his PR effort to create the image for the unit, Frenki tried to
establish the link to that tradition. The famous red berets, which
originally were being given to kninjas after they finished their
training course became a popular symbol, first throughout CRO
and B&H and then even in Serbia with the 23rd parachute brigade of the
Army and the JSO of the Police.
The Captain completely dismissed the importance of the video by
explaining this was merely 'a nice show for the
President and other high officials' to present the unit bigger and
stronger than it ever was (it never surpassed the size
of one company), the helicopter squadron mentioned were precisely 'two
small Gazelles and one ancient Bell from
the Viet Nam war; my friend from the US has a private fleet larger
than that'. Captain Dragan gave his fatherly
opinion to the judges: "I believe this video was being discussed much
too seriously here."
The amicus curiae Kay took only few minutes, questioning the Captain
mainly about the weapons that his unit had, as
opposed to Croatian units that he directly fought at Glina, Skabrnja
and Ljubovo: the Croats were the size of a brigade each
time, much better equipped and with armoured vehicles. The only
advantage the Captain had was the night-vision and
communication equipment, used for behind-the-lines incursions.
Then, it was time for the Prosecution to save something by re-direct
examination and, contrary to what the ICTY apologists
write, it was nowhere near brilliant: Groome's face got all red, he
was constantly being interrupted and corrected by judges
and admonished by Kay and the witness was beyond his reach.
When he desperately tried to prove his own witness was lying/being
hostile/not speaking good Serbian/was talking to Frenki
about his testimony, he amply proved something else: the Prosecution's
own technique of producing evidence by distortion.
In short: Captain Dragan stated he was told by Jovica Stanisic to
leave Krajina, and his first thought was that this came from
Milosevic. Upon reflection, he realized that he was being caught in
feuds between Babic and Martic, Babic wanting to seize
complete control, resenting the Captain as being 'a Martic man' and
forced him to leave, by slandering him in media with 'he
received money, finished the job and went away'. Stanisic just advised
him to better remove himself from these political
clashes, trying to protect him.
The Captain understood Babic had more authority than Milosevic and
that it was the former who forced him away. Poor
Groome tried to prove his witness crazy for stating such a stupidity
and a lengthy discussion developed, including even judges.
Milosevic spoke up, almost laughingly offering help to clear the mess:
the words missing were again 'in Krajina'.
Yes, Babic was more powerful and influential in Krajina than
Milosevic, so he was in a position to expel the Captain.
How desperate the Prosecution is, clutching to such a sliver.
This testimony revealed the sinister practice happening when
statements are being taken from the witnesses by the
Prosecution's investigators.
Captain Dragan gave his statement on 26-27-28 August 2001. But, when
Milosevic read out one paragraph from it,
the witness said he doesn't recall 'ever saying this'. The same
happened during the re-direct examination by
Groome. The problem is the following: there are no questions in these
statements, only the answers, packed together
continuously like a story and worded and interpreted by the
investigators, and not quoted verbatim.
This leaves them opened to misinterpretations, distortions, wild
editing and taking out of context.
Here's one example. Milosevic quoted the statement: "In my opinion,
the war effort was financed by the Serbian government,
but I have no proof of that." The Captain denied ever using the term
'war effort', he thought that 'the question probably was
whether any help was being sent, which of course was, and which was
insufficient in my opinion, but this is absolutely distorted.'
Milosevic took the opportunity to slap May, saying that such practice
is nothing new, that the value of statements concocted
on the basis of answers to God knows which questions is highly
dubious. May admitted that the audio recording doesn't exist
and that we have to be 'satisfied with the statements such as they
are'.
And when Groome pulled the same statement-reading in his re-direct,
the Captain vehemently denied the formulation again
and recognized the plot: that was the 'working version' of the
statement, for which the investigators told him they would
never use it, and there's another, revised version, signed recently.
"This is not correct. These are your formulations,
taken out from our conversation. We agreed this would never be used. I
don't accept this statement, but the revised
one, were the corrections have been made with Mr Sexton. I gave
another statement, because of too many mistakes.
This is a trick. I accept only the statement signed last week!" said
the Captain, waving this piece of paper.
The solution to the problem by May? Both statements were introduced as
evidence.
Captain Dragan and Milosevic chatted away the cross-examination almost
like friends, certainly in a way of two people
deeply aware what kind of false show they got themselves mixed up in.
Speaking of his encounter in Belgrade with Jovica
Stanisic, when he got an advice to get away from Babic-Martic
political games, the Captain admitted his first reaction was to
get angry with Milosevic for sending him such an advice ('I thought I
would get your support'), but instead of that he had to
leave. "And here they are accusing you of exactly the opposite; either
way, it's a no-win situation for you and I wouldn't want
to be in your shoes." Both men laughed.
Yet another Dubrovnik witness, this time an ITN journalist, one Paul
Davis, started to testify on Friday. This is becoming ridiculous.
On Monday there will be no session.
=== 2 ===
From: Vladimir Krsljanin
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 4:45 PM
SLOBODA/Freedom Association, Belgrade
Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, dear compatriots,
In the Hague, it is the Serbian history and future generations that
are put to trial, rather than any individual and Slobodan Milosevic
in particuilar. As you and the entire mankind know, that great son of
our people does not recognize the "court" that is tending to the
world's rulers and their brute force, and which undoubtedly is a
freak in the international legal system, whose sole purpose is to
ultimately demonize the Serbian people. The courage and resoluteness
of Slobodan Milosevic present a plea to all Serbian patriots to join
the struggle for preservation of the honor and dignity of the Serbian
people.
The struggle of Slobodan Milosevic for the truth, which reveals daily
that the allegations against him and the Serbian people are made up
of lies, is hindered by various obstructions whose goal is to twart
the trooth and conceal the crimes of others. By not recognizing the
court that runs this ignominious process, Slobodan Milosevic and his
defence are deprived, among other things, also of the financial
rights. That is yet another way to to prevent his moral struggle.
Such barriers exist not only among the mighty ones abroad, but also
among their obedient servants and vassals in our fatherland. Those
problems have become so serious that bringing the defence witnesses,
and the entire defence, have been jeopardized, even more so because
the Yugoslav state, or any official structure of the regime, shows no
interest in the successful and upright struggle for the truth about
Serbian nation.
This letter is a bid to you to close the ranks in the battle for
truth. It is for that reason that we appeal to you, and to all honest
people and their organizations, to support financially the defence of
Slobodan Milosevic and make possible this historical struggle for the
integrity, honor, pride and truth about our nation.
In this way, the National Committee for the Liberation of Slobodan
Milosevic, SLOBODA/Freedom Association, together with you, wishes to
help the great son of our people in this struggle.
Belgrade, January 20th, 2003
For SLOBODA/Freedom Association,
Bogoljub Bjelica, president
======================================
SLOBODA/Freedom Association,
National Committee for the Liberation of Slobodan Milosevic
Address: Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Phones: +381-11-630-206, +381-11-639-152
Fax: +381-11-630-549
Bank giro account
Intermediary:
ABS AG, Zurich, Switzerland
Swift code: UBSWCHZH
Account with:
Komercijalna banka AD,
Svetog Save 14, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
Swift code: KOBBYUBG
Beneficiary:
Acc. # 5428-1246-16154-6
Name: Sloboda za svet slobodnih i ravnopravnih
Address: Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, FR Yugoslavia
(codes for different currencies: 978 - EUR, 840 - USD, 756 - CHF)
_________________________________________________________________