==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
1. Ian Johnson: The Hague - A Family Affair
2. Ramsey Clark: Tribunal destroys its last claim to legality
3. Neboisa Malic: The Hague Showdown
---( 1 )---
THE ICTY AND THE DECIMATION OF YUGOSLAVIA - A FAMILY AFFAIR
"Gentlemen, you cannot imagine what a privilege it is, even under the
conditions you imposed on me, to have truth and justice on my side."
Slobodan Milosevic 1st September 2004.
It's a family affair, and it's a big family. It includes the Nato
powers that bombed Yugoslavia, and The Hague tribunal that puts the
victims of that bombing on trial.
The Western governments, not content with erasing the sovereign state
of Yugoslavia from the map of the world, even created, funded and
staffed an illegal court to finish things off. The Chief prosecutor at
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
is from North America, as was her predecessor. The so-called `mother'
of the tribunal is American, the leading judge in the case against
Slobodan Milosevic is British, as was his predecessor, the prosecutor
in the case against Slobodan Milosevic is British, the tribunal's 1300
staff are overwhelmingly British and American and it is Nato
governments and their intelligence services who are charged with
collecting `evidence' and finding `witnesses' to satisfy the court.
Given the above and the fact that the powers behind the creation of
this tribunal have a direct stake in the outcome of proceedings, who
in their right mind, could possible state that the defendants will
receive a fair trial?
The Guardian newspaper in December 2001 asked a British lawyer if the
Hague tribunal provides a system of justice which correctly convicts
the guilty and acquits the innocent?
The lawyer responded, "… if one was to stand back and look at it, the
judgment of any impartial observer would be that it is a forum that
provides a fair trial."
That British lawyer was Stephen Kay.
Mr Stephen Kay, with his chambers in London's Grays Inn, has just been
appointed as defence counsel for Slobodan Milosevic, against the
express wishes of the former Yugoslav president.
Mr Kay became so favoured by the Hague tribunal that he was also
selected as defence counsel for its crucial showpiece first trial
against Dusko Tadic in 1996. After Mr Kay's defence the court issued a
20-year sentence on Mr Tadic.
Mr Kay has also been active at the Arusha tribunal, the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) which is the twin tribunal of the
Hague court.
At the Arusha tribunal he acted for Alfred Musema, the first civilian
to be charged with genocide. After Mr Kay's defence the court issued a
sentence of life imprisonment on the defendant.
The final outcome, therefore, was that both his clients were convicted
of the main charges against them.
Mr Kay is no stranger to Mr Milosevic, being part of the court
appointed Amicus Curiae (friends of the court) in the prosecution part
of the trial. In that position Stephen Kay was made very much aware of
Mr Milosevic's insistence on his legal right to conduct his own
defence. Despite this knowledge it appears that Mr Kay had no
hesitation in being part of the rewriting of international law.
As explained in the letter `IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN
MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LIFE OF
THE DEFENDANT'
which was addressed to the United Nations and has now been signed by
over 100 lawyers and jurists it states:
"The right to defend oneself against criminal charges is central in
both international law and in the very structure of the adversarial
system. The fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as under
the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and
Yugoslavia, include the right to defend oneself in person."
The letter also contains this warning:
"In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only
one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an
unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the
Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late
16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial
character, and characteristically departed from common-law traditions.
For those reasons, and because it specialized in trying 'political'
offenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of
basic individual rights."
The letter correctly reaches the conclusion that:
".. expediency has become, as the defendant is set to present
essential and potentially embarrassing evidence, the Chamber's
apparently overwhelming concern."
Prior to Stephen Kay's acceptance of the position of defense counsel,
another former amicus curiae at the Hague process, Branislav
Tapuskovic, was asked why he would not accept the position of defence
counsel.
He replied: "I have respected the provision of Article 21, point 4/d
of the Statute of the ICTY, according to which every defendant has the
guaranteed right TO BE TRIED IN HIS PRESENCE AND TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN
PERSON." (German daily "junge Welt", 30 August 2004).
The newspaper posed a further question:
"Critical voices say that imposing counsel on Mr. Milosevic is an
attempt to prevent him from presenting his facts and witnesses.
Comment, please."
Mr Tapuskovic answered: " The trial cannot be valid if Slobodan
Milosevic does not present his evidence." (Ibid).
A principled response, principles that are obviously not shared by
some of his colleagues.
In his new role Stephen Kay will have the assistance of another
lawyer, Gilian Higgins.
Although known by this name for some years her actual name is Gilian
Kay Higgins. She is the daughter of Stephen Kay. A family affair indeed.
The imposition of defense counsel not only violates Mr Milosevic's
legal rights, but is also intended to sabotage the case for the defence.
In his opening statement at the commencement of his defence case
Slobodan Milosevic expounded in great detail the repeated violations
of Yugoslavia's sovereignty over the last decade, which eventually led
to Nato's illegal war, and astounded the court with his breadth of
knowledge and his attention to detail, which vividly demonstrated the
illegal actions of the western powers. Clearly he had to be silenced.
Ian Johnson.
Coordinator CDSM-UK
2nd September 2004.
---( 2 )---
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 3 Set 2004 01:21:03 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Ramsey Clark: Tribunal destroys its last claim to legality
Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General and Co-Chairman of the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) has made
this afternoon the following statement:
================================================
Under International Law, every person accused of a crime has the right
to represent himself in person in the court adjudicating his case.
Slobodan Milosevic is no exception. The Trial Chamber of the
International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has destroyed
its last claim to legality by attempting to deprive the former
President of Yugoslavia of this fundamental human right.
The appearance of President Milosevic representing himself alone
during the prosecution case for over 2 years, nearly 300 trial days,
cross examining nearly 300 prosecution witnesses, coping with 500,000
documents, and 30,000 pages of trial transcript then at the very
beginning of his presentation of his own defense being silenced and
lawyers he rejects placed in charge of his destiny, speaks of injustice.
President Milosevic vigorously presented his opening statement of his
own defense in person for two days on August 31 and September 1, 2004
immediately before the Trial Chamber decided he "is not fit enough to
represent himself". He was apparently "fit enough" to perform that
task. If the time comes when credible doctors, including his own, find
that a slower pace is required to protect his health, or that further
effort by him at that time may impair his health, then the only
permissible course is to follow a schedule that honors his right to
defend himself in person and protects his ability to do so. Life,
truth and justice are more important than the schedules of courts, or
railroads.
The very lawyers appointed by the Trial Chamber have a direct conflict
of interest. They have served by appointment of the court as "friends
of the Court". You cannot serve two masters. Having served as friend
of the Court, that same counsel selected by the Court to represent
President Milosevic cannot ethically serve as his counsel.
No lawyer who might be appointed to represent President Milosevic has
interviewed his witnesses, knows the testimony they can give, what
questions to ask them, or what their answers might be. Professional
preparation - and this is no ordinary case - would require months.
The Trial Chamber must abandon this travesty and do its duty
consistent with the health of the accused to faithfully, competently,
independently and impartially hear the evidence, find the facts and
apply the law.
Ramsey Clark
New York
September 2, 2004
---( 3 )---
The Hague Showdown
Milosevic Strikes Back
by Nebojsa Malic
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3487
Slobodan Milosevic's defense at the Hague Inquisition began this week,
after several delays. Reporters in The Hague, who are without
exception partial to the Tribunal and scornful of Milosevic, described
his opening statement as "defiant" but pointless, as he supposedly did
not address the actual charges. But the prattling of Tribunal
camp-followers notwithstanding, even the sparse quotes coming from The
Hague indicate otherwise.
Milosevic apparently chose to ignore the pseudo-legal fictions the
Inquisition uses as props, and focused on the heart of the matter: the
underlying premise that he was at the heart of the "joint criminal
enterprise," a conspiracy of Serb leadership to destroy and carve up
Yugoslavia, while systematically killing and expelling Croats, Muslims
and Albanians, which he deemed "unscrupulous lies and a tireless
distortion of history."
In that, he is absolutely right. The crux of the indictment against
him is a conspiracy theory conjured by a former FBI agent and
garnished with a vulgar, warmed-over canard theory first concocted
over 100 years ago ("Greater Serbia"), which has little or nothing to
do with the truth, and even less with justice.
Conjuring a Conspiracy
A very revealing two-part article appeared in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette on August 22 and 29. The paper's reporter profiled a
local law professor, John Cencich. As it turns out:
"Cencich played a key role in devising a revolutionary strategy for
prosecuting war criminals. The Milosevic case marks the first time the
principle of accomplice liability has been used in an international
court.
"Milosevic didn't commit the crimes in the conventional sense, by
pulling a trigger or assaulting anyone. As president of Serbia at the
time – he wasn't president of Yugoslavia until 1997 – he lacked legal
command of federal forces and of the paramilitary units raised in
Croatian Serbian enclaves and blamed for many atrocities.
"Yet world opinion held Milosevic accountable for Yugoslavia's violent
disintegration, and court records alleged he directed events from the
Serbian capital, Belgrade."
In Cencich's innovative interpretation of international law, if
Milosevic could be charged of belonging to a group of conspirators,
then "each member of the group was responsible for every crime,
planned or unplanned, arising from the enterprise." This mind-boggling
theory, worse even than the catchall doctrine of "command
responsibility" also used by the ICTY, is the basis for the entire
indictment!
Many supporters of the ICTY argue that it does not seek to apportion
collective responsibility, but determine individual guilt for specific
atrocities in the former Yugoslavia. The theories of "command
responsibility" and "joint criminal enterprise" effectively scuttle
that argument, because they have been used to indict the entire
political and military leadership of the Serbian people. So while it
is an obvious truth that Milosevic is not Serbia, the ICTY treats him
as such, and by prosecuting him effectively prosecutes Serbia. Whoever
believes that there won't be any consequences to Serbia as a result of
guilty verdicts against its political and military leadership is
either disingenuous or breathtakingly stupid, or both.
Whosoever Is Without Sin…
On the eve of Milosevic's opening statement, the Belgrade agent of
Human Rights Watch, one Bogdan Ivanisevic, published an op-ed in the
International Herald Tribune, defending the trial and the Tribunal as
paragons of fairness and justice. Says Ivanisevic:
"Many Western observers expected the tribunal to rapidly confirm the
accepted wisdom that Milosevic was responsible for war crimes, crimes
against humanity and even genocide in the former Yugoslavia in the
1990s.
Yet they failed to appreciate the important difference between
determining political responsibility in the realm of public opinion
and establishing criminal responsibility in a court of law."
Perhaps this is because for most of Tribunal's backers, that
difference is nonexistent. They own the public opinion, and create the
accepted wisdom, in addition to owning and creating the "court of law"
such as the ICTY. It may be a waste of breath to point out that the UN
Security Council cannot establish courts, because it has no judicial
authority, and that the ICTY therefore is not legal – but that makes
it no less true.
From a perspective of legitimacy, prosecuting Milosevic for war crimes
would make sense if the forces backing the Tribunal – i.e., the Empire
and its allies – themselves respected the laws and customs of war. But
they do not, and even reject the notion that any laws apply to their
unrestrained use of power.
The Inquisition claims Milosevic condoned "ethnic cleansing," even as
its chief backer – the United States – organized, instigated and
supported the Croatian ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Krajina and Bosnia
(1995) and the Albanian expulsion of Serbs from Kosovo (1999+). Is it
not incongruous that the country that gave us Abu Ghraib can champion
a court that charges Milosevic of being responsible for torture,
deaths and inhumane conditions in POW camps in Bosnia?
None of these is an argument of moral equivalence; Milosevic's
involvement in these alleged atrocities has always been in the realm
of wild insinuations, while the U.S. responsibility for the
aforementioned atrocities – and a host of others, elsewhere – has been
established well beyond reasonable doubt.
Whence the Hate?
Yet as HRW's Ivanisevic points out, there is an "accepted wisdom" that
Milosevic was responsible for the Balkans wars of the 1990s, even
though there is no evidence for it, and much against. In effect, he
has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, and the
ICTY proceedings are just a formality.
That may be true, but who is that "court," then? Was the verdict
reached based on efforts of PR companies, who had once similarly
convinced the world of Iraqi incubator-smashing? Were its "expert
witnesses" the various adherents of the Stephen Glass school of
journalism? This is the very same media – sometimes the very same
people – who peddled the shameless lies of Bush and Blair about
"Saddam's WMD" and the war in Iraq, isn't it?
Just because everyone believes what is said on TV and in the papers
does not make it true; the WMD example demonstrates clearly that it
can be absolutely false. The notion that Western media persistently
lied – whether about Milosevic and the Balkans, or about Saddam
Hussein and Iraq, or who knows what else – may sound incredible, but
it is a lot more realistic than the crackpot conspiracy theories
peddled by the ICTY.
Of course, Milosevic is hated by many in Croatia, Bosnia and the
Albanian-occupied Kosovo, as the arch-villain responsible for all
their suffering. Lost in their haze of hatred is the consideration of
their own role in the 1990s violence. Victim politics is a powerful
force.
This also explains why Milosevic is vilified by so many in Serbia. The
Western media, governments and NGOs love to claim that Serbs have been
fed "a steady diet of propaganda" over the past 15 years, but most of
that propaganda was their own. Unable to comprehend why anyone would
hate them so much, many Serbs began to think they must have done
something to merit such demonization. While Milosevic and his family
have certainly given people plenty to be bitter about, that does not
explain the extent to which he is hated. More likely, most Serbians
blame Milosevic because that is convenient – certainly more so than
facing the Empire's lies, or rediscovering personal responsibility. We
are, after all, talking about people who jailed the TV station
supervisor because NATO bombed and killed his workers.
An "Obvious Equation"
All these lies and insinuations serve the same end: to strengthen the
Empire in its mission of world domination, supposedly benevolent and
prosperity-bringing. This pursuit is by definition hypocritical and
cynical, treating the Balkans as chump change and harboring contempt
for truth and justice.
Consider this official government statement by Condoleezza Rice, just
last weekend:
"America has gone to war five times since the end of the Cold War …
each time it was to help Muslims[.] Americans have fought in Kuwait
and in Bosnia and in Kosovo and in Afghanistan and Iraq. Without
exception, these were wars of liberation and of freedom."
And here is Peter Fray, in Australia's The Age, writing about the U.S.
desire to catch Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic:
"As Iraq inflames anti-U.S. tensions in the Arab world, Washington
would like nothing better than to bring a high-profile alleged
Muslim-killer to justice.
"'It would be an obvious story for us to sell,' a U.S. official told
The Age, on condition of anonymity. 'It is an obvious equation for us.'"
Criticizing Bush's handling of the Iraq war (but not the war itself),
former first lady and now Senator Hillary Clinton boasted to CNN of
her husband's war record: "You know, we were successful in Kosovo –
and we didn't lose a single American military person."
That Kosovo fit the definition of the very first Nuremberg crime is
beside the point, of course. Hillary Clinton's contempt for lives of
non-Americans rivals that of her husband for the truth.
It's the Truth, Stupid
Defending Milosevic from the ridiculous and trumped-up charges of the
Hague Inquisition does not mean approving either of his policies or
his actions. It does, however, mean opposing the ongoing travesty in
The Hague that claims the mantle of international justice while in
fact it represents the exact opposite.
Were the Balkans wars of the 1990s ridden with atrocities? Of course –
and those responsible for them ought to be properly tried and
punished, that should be obvious. But does the Milosevic trial serve
the cause of justice?
Its perversion of judicial procedures, the very existence of ICTY
without the requisite legitimacy, and most of all the manifestly false
"facts" asserted in the indictment and in the Imperial media, make it
obvious that it does not. Justice is served by truth – but in The
Hague, there just isn't any.
============
***********************************************************
THE LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ARE IN PERIL.
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS' PETITION:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS' APPEAL FOR MILOSEVIC:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/artists.htm
SUPPORT THE ICDSM:
http://www.icdsm.org/
*********************************************************
You can find detailed instructions at:
http://www.icdsm.org/battle.htm
(please also follow the links therein) or
*************************************************************
You can make transfers to ICDSM accounts in Europe:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
THE ILLEGAL HAGUE PROCESS MUST END.
Statement by the President of the World Peace Council Orlando Fundora
(Cuba)
http://www.icdsm.org/more/fundora.htm
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
VIDOVDAN PEOPLE'S RALLY IN BELGRADE ORGANIZED BY SLOBODA
to mark the third anniversary of kidnapping of President Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org/more/galery2806.htm
**************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
1. Ian Johnson: The Hague - A Family Affair
2. Ramsey Clark: Tribunal destroys its last claim to legality
3. Neboisa Malic: The Hague Showdown
---( 1 )---
THE ICTY AND THE DECIMATION OF YUGOSLAVIA - A FAMILY AFFAIR
"Gentlemen, you cannot imagine what a privilege it is, even under the
conditions you imposed on me, to have truth and justice on my side."
Slobodan Milosevic 1st September 2004.
It's a family affair, and it's a big family. It includes the Nato
powers that bombed Yugoslavia, and The Hague tribunal that puts the
victims of that bombing on trial.
The Western governments, not content with erasing the sovereign state
of Yugoslavia from the map of the world, even created, funded and
staffed an illegal court to finish things off. The Chief prosecutor at
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
is from North America, as was her predecessor. The so-called `mother'
of the tribunal is American, the leading judge in the case against
Slobodan Milosevic is British, as was his predecessor, the prosecutor
in the case against Slobodan Milosevic is British, the tribunal's 1300
staff are overwhelmingly British and American and it is Nato
governments and their intelligence services who are charged with
collecting `evidence' and finding `witnesses' to satisfy the court.
Given the above and the fact that the powers behind the creation of
this tribunal have a direct stake in the outcome of proceedings, who
in their right mind, could possible state that the defendants will
receive a fair trial?
The Guardian newspaper in December 2001 asked a British lawyer if the
Hague tribunal provides a system of justice which correctly convicts
the guilty and acquits the innocent?
The lawyer responded, "… if one was to stand back and look at it, the
judgment of any impartial observer would be that it is a forum that
provides a fair trial."
That British lawyer was Stephen Kay.
Mr Stephen Kay, with his chambers in London's Grays Inn, has just been
appointed as defence counsel for Slobodan Milosevic, against the
express wishes of the former Yugoslav president.
Mr Kay became so favoured by the Hague tribunal that he was also
selected as defence counsel for its crucial showpiece first trial
against Dusko Tadic in 1996. After Mr Kay's defence the court issued a
20-year sentence on Mr Tadic.
Mr Kay has also been active at the Arusha tribunal, the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) which is the twin tribunal of the
Hague court.
At the Arusha tribunal he acted for Alfred Musema, the first civilian
to be charged with genocide. After Mr Kay's defence the court issued a
sentence of life imprisonment on the defendant.
The final outcome, therefore, was that both his clients were convicted
of the main charges against them.
Mr Kay is no stranger to Mr Milosevic, being part of the court
appointed Amicus Curiae (friends of the court) in the prosecution part
of the trial. In that position Stephen Kay was made very much aware of
Mr Milosevic's insistence on his legal right to conduct his own
defence. Despite this knowledge it appears that Mr Kay had no
hesitation in being part of the rewriting of international law.
As explained in the letter `IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN
MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LIFE OF
THE DEFENDANT'
which was addressed to the United Nations and has now been signed by
over 100 lawyers and jurists it states:
"The right to defend oneself against criminal charges is central in
both international law and in the very structure of the adversarial
system. The fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as under
the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and
Yugoslavia, include the right to defend oneself in person."
The letter also contains this warning:
"In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only
one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an
unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the
Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late
16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial
character, and characteristically departed from common-law traditions.
For those reasons, and because it specialized in trying 'political'
offenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of
basic individual rights."
The letter correctly reaches the conclusion that:
".. expediency has become, as the defendant is set to present
essential and potentially embarrassing evidence, the Chamber's
apparently overwhelming concern."
Prior to Stephen Kay's acceptance of the position of defense counsel,
another former amicus curiae at the Hague process, Branislav
Tapuskovic, was asked why he would not accept the position of defence
counsel.
He replied: "I have respected the provision of Article 21, point 4/d
of the Statute of the ICTY, according to which every defendant has the
guaranteed right TO BE TRIED IN HIS PRESENCE AND TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN
PERSON." (German daily "junge Welt", 30 August 2004).
The newspaper posed a further question:
"Critical voices say that imposing counsel on Mr. Milosevic is an
attempt to prevent him from presenting his facts and witnesses.
Comment, please."
Mr Tapuskovic answered: " The trial cannot be valid if Slobodan
Milosevic does not present his evidence." (Ibid).
A principled response, principles that are obviously not shared by
some of his colleagues.
In his new role Stephen Kay will have the assistance of another
lawyer, Gilian Higgins.
Although known by this name for some years her actual name is Gilian
Kay Higgins. She is the daughter of Stephen Kay. A family affair indeed.
The imposition of defense counsel not only violates Mr Milosevic's
legal rights, but is also intended to sabotage the case for the defence.
In his opening statement at the commencement of his defence case
Slobodan Milosevic expounded in great detail the repeated violations
of Yugoslavia's sovereignty over the last decade, which eventually led
to Nato's illegal war, and astounded the court with his breadth of
knowledge and his attention to detail, which vividly demonstrated the
illegal actions of the western powers. Clearly he had to be silenced.
Ian Johnson.
Coordinator CDSM-UK
2nd September 2004.
---( 2 )---
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 3 Set 2004 01:21:03 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Ramsey Clark: Tribunal destroys its last claim to legality
Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General and Co-Chairman of the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) has made
this afternoon the following statement:
================================================
Under International Law, every person accused of a crime has the right
to represent himself in person in the court adjudicating his case.
Slobodan Milosevic is no exception. The Trial Chamber of the
International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has destroyed
its last claim to legality by attempting to deprive the former
President of Yugoslavia of this fundamental human right.
The appearance of President Milosevic representing himself alone
during the prosecution case for over 2 years, nearly 300 trial days,
cross examining nearly 300 prosecution witnesses, coping with 500,000
documents, and 30,000 pages of trial transcript then at the very
beginning of his presentation of his own defense being silenced and
lawyers he rejects placed in charge of his destiny, speaks of injustice.
President Milosevic vigorously presented his opening statement of his
own defense in person for two days on August 31 and September 1, 2004
immediately before the Trial Chamber decided he "is not fit enough to
represent himself". He was apparently "fit enough" to perform that
task. If the time comes when credible doctors, including his own, find
that a slower pace is required to protect his health, or that further
effort by him at that time may impair his health, then the only
permissible course is to follow a schedule that honors his right to
defend himself in person and protects his ability to do so. Life,
truth and justice are more important than the schedules of courts, or
railroads.
The very lawyers appointed by the Trial Chamber have a direct conflict
of interest. They have served by appointment of the court as "friends
of the Court". You cannot serve two masters. Having served as friend
of the Court, that same counsel selected by the Court to represent
President Milosevic cannot ethically serve as his counsel.
No lawyer who might be appointed to represent President Milosevic has
interviewed his witnesses, knows the testimony they can give, what
questions to ask them, or what their answers might be. Professional
preparation - and this is no ordinary case - would require months.
The Trial Chamber must abandon this travesty and do its duty
consistent with the health of the accused to faithfully, competently,
independently and impartially hear the evidence, find the facts and
apply the law.
Ramsey Clark
New York
September 2, 2004
---( 3 )---
The Hague Showdown
Milosevic Strikes Back
by Nebojsa Malic
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3487
Slobodan Milosevic's defense at the Hague Inquisition began this week,
after several delays. Reporters in The Hague, who are without
exception partial to the Tribunal and scornful of Milosevic, described
his opening statement as "defiant" but pointless, as he supposedly did
not address the actual charges. But the prattling of Tribunal
camp-followers notwithstanding, even the sparse quotes coming from The
Hague indicate otherwise.
Milosevic apparently chose to ignore the pseudo-legal fictions the
Inquisition uses as props, and focused on the heart of the matter: the
underlying premise that he was at the heart of the "joint criminal
enterprise," a conspiracy of Serb leadership to destroy and carve up
Yugoslavia, while systematically killing and expelling Croats, Muslims
and Albanians, which he deemed "unscrupulous lies and a tireless
distortion of history."
In that, he is absolutely right. The crux of the indictment against
him is a conspiracy theory conjured by a former FBI agent and
garnished with a vulgar, warmed-over canard theory first concocted
over 100 years ago ("Greater Serbia"), which has little or nothing to
do with the truth, and even less with justice.
Conjuring a Conspiracy
A very revealing two-part article appeared in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette on August 22 and 29. The paper's reporter profiled a
local law professor, John Cencich. As it turns out:
"Cencich played a key role in devising a revolutionary strategy for
prosecuting war criminals. The Milosevic case marks the first time the
principle of accomplice liability has been used in an international
court.
"Milosevic didn't commit the crimes in the conventional sense, by
pulling a trigger or assaulting anyone. As president of Serbia at the
time – he wasn't president of Yugoslavia until 1997 – he lacked legal
command of federal forces and of the paramilitary units raised in
Croatian Serbian enclaves and blamed for many atrocities.
"Yet world opinion held Milosevic accountable for Yugoslavia's violent
disintegration, and court records alleged he directed events from the
Serbian capital, Belgrade."
In Cencich's innovative interpretation of international law, if
Milosevic could be charged of belonging to a group of conspirators,
then "each member of the group was responsible for every crime,
planned or unplanned, arising from the enterprise." This mind-boggling
theory, worse even than the catchall doctrine of "command
responsibility" also used by the ICTY, is the basis for the entire
indictment!
Many supporters of the ICTY argue that it does not seek to apportion
collective responsibility, but determine individual guilt for specific
atrocities in the former Yugoslavia. The theories of "command
responsibility" and "joint criminal enterprise" effectively scuttle
that argument, because they have been used to indict the entire
political and military leadership of the Serbian people. So while it
is an obvious truth that Milosevic is not Serbia, the ICTY treats him
as such, and by prosecuting him effectively prosecutes Serbia. Whoever
believes that there won't be any consequences to Serbia as a result of
guilty verdicts against its political and military leadership is
either disingenuous or breathtakingly stupid, or both.
Whosoever Is Without Sin…
On the eve of Milosevic's opening statement, the Belgrade agent of
Human Rights Watch, one Bogdan Ivanisevic, published an op-ed in the
International Herald Tribune, defending the trial and the Tribunal as
paragons of fairness and justice. Says Ivanisevic:
"Many Western observers expected the tribunal to rapidly confirm the
accepted wisdom that Milosevic was responsible for war crimes, crimes
against humanity and even genocide in the former Yugoslavia in the
1990s.
Yet they failed to appreciate the important difference between
determining political responsibility in the realm of public opinion
and establishing criminal responsibility in a court of law."
Perhaps this is because for most of Tribunal's backers, that
difference is nonexistent. They own the public opinion, and create the
accepted wisdom, in addition to owning and creating the "court of law"
such as the ICTY. It may be a waste of breath to point out that the UN
Security Council cannot establish courts, because it has no judicial
authority, and that the ICTY therefore is not legal – but that makes
it no less true.
From a perspective of legitimacy, prosecuting Milosevic for war crimes
would make sense if the forces backing the Tribunal – i.e., the Empire
and its allies – themselves respected the laws and customs of war. But
they do not, and even reject the notion that any laws apply to their
unrestrained use of power.
The Inquisition claims Milosevic condoned "ethnic cleansing," even as
its chief backer – the United States – organized, instigated and
supported the Croatian ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Krajina and Bosnia
(1995) and the Albanian expulsion of Serbs from Kosovo (1999+). Is it
not incongruous that the country that gave us Abu Ghraib can champion
a court that charges Milosevic of being responsible for torture,
deaths and inhumane conditions in POW camps in Bosnia?
None of these is an argument of moral equivalence; Milosevic's
involvement in these alleged atrocities has always been in the realm
of wild insinuations, while the U.S. responsibility for the
aforementioned atrocities – and a host of others, elsewhere – has been
established well beyond reasonable doubt.
Whence the Hate?
Yet as HRW's Ivanisevic points out, there is an "accepted wisdom" that
Milosevic was responsible for the Balkans wars of the 1990s, even
though there is no evidence for it, and much against. In effect, he
has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, and the
ICTY proceedings are just a formality.
That may be true, but who is that "court," then? Was the verdict
reached based on efforts of PR companies, who had once similarly
convinced the world of Iraqi incubator-smashing? Were its "expert
witnesses" the various adherents of the Stephen Glass school of
journalism? This is the very same media – sometimes the very same
people – who peddled the shameless lies of Bush and Blair about
"Saddam's WMD" and the war in Iraq, isn't it?
Just because everyone believes what is said on TV and in the papers
does not make it true; the WMD example demonstrates clearly that it
can be absolutely false. The notion that Western media persistently
lied – whether about Milosevic and the Balkans, or about Saddam
Hussein and Iraq, or who knows what else – may sound incredible, but
it is a lot more realistic than the crackpot conspiracy theories
peddled by the ICTY.
Of course, Milosevic is hated by many in Croatia, Bosnia and the
Albanian-occupied Kosovo, as the arch-villain responsible for all
their suffering. Lost in their haze of hatred is the consideration of
their own role in the 1990s violence. Victim politics is a powerful
force.
This also explains why Milosevic is vilified by so many in Serbia. The
Western media, governments and NGOs love to claim that Serbs have been
fed "a steady diet of propaganda" over the past 15 years, but most of
that propaganda was their own. Unable to comprehend why anyone would
hate them so much, many Serbs began to think they must have done
something to merit such demonization. While Milosevic and his family
have certainly given people plenty to be bitter about, that does not
explain the extent to which he is hated. More likely, most Serbians
blame Milosevic because that is convenient – certainly more so than
facing the Empire's lies, or rediscovering personal responsibility. We
are, after all, talking about people who jailed the TV station
supervisor because NATO bombed and killed his workers.
An "Obvious Equation"
All these lies and insinuations serve the same end: to strengthen the
Empire in its mission of world domination, supposedly benevolent and
prosperity-bringing. This pursuit is by definition hypocritical and
cynical, treating the Balkans as chump change and harboring contempt
for truth and justice.
Consider this official government statement by Condoleezza Rice, just
last weekend:
"America has gone to war five times since the end of the Cold War …
each time it was to help Muslims[.] Americans have fought in Kuwait
and in Bosnia and in Kosovo and in Afghanistan and Iraq. Without
exception, these were wars of liberation and of freedom."
And here is Peter Fray, in Australia's The Age, writing about the U.S.
desire to catch Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic:
"As Iraq inflames anti-U.S. tensions in the Arab world, Washington
would like nothing better than to bring a high-profile alleged
Muslim-killer to justice.
"'It would be an obvious story for us to sell,' a U.S. official told
The Age, on condition of anonymity. 'It is an obvious equation for us.'"
Criticizing Bush's handling of the Iraq war (but not the war itself),
former first lady and now Senator Hillary Clinton boasted to CNN of
her husband's war record: "You know, we were successful in Kosovo –
and we didn't lose a single American military person."
That Kosovo fit the definition of the very first Nuremberg crime is
beside the point, of course. Hillary Clinton's contempt for lives of
non-Americans rivals that of her husband for the truth.
It's the Truth, Stupid
Defending Milosevic from the ridiculous and trumped-up charges of the
Hague Inquisition does not mean approving either of his policies or
his actions. It does, however, mean opposing the ongoing travesty in
The Hague that claims the mantle of international justice while in
fact it represents the exact opposite.
Were the Balkans wars of the 1990s ridden with atrocities? Of course –
and those responsible for them ought to be properly tried and
punished, that should be obvious. But does the Milosevic trial serve
the cause of justice?
Its perversion of judicial procedures, the very existence of ICTY
without the requisite legitimacy, and most of all the manifestly false
"facts" asserted in the indictment and in the Imperial media, make it
obvious that it does not. Justice is served by truth – but in The
Hague, there just isn't any.
============
***********************************************************
THE LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ARE IN PERIL.
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS' PETITION:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS' APPEAL FOR MILOSEVIC:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/artists.htm
SUPPORT THE ICDSM:
http://www.icdsm.org/
*********************************************************
You can find detailed instructions at:
http://www.icdsm.org/battle.htm
(please also follow the links therein) or
*************************************************************
You can make transfers to ICDSM accounts in Europe:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
THE ILLEGAL HAGUE PROCESS MUST END.
Statement by the President of the World Peace Council Orlando Fundora
(Cuba)
http://www.icdsm.org/more/fundora.htm
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
VIDOVDAN PEOPLE'S RALLY IN BELGRADE ORGANIZED BY SLOBODA
to mark the third anniversary of kidnapping of President Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org/more/galery2806.htm
**************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)