“International War-crimes Tribunal” financed by
the United States Government and US Multi-Nationals
It’s as if Washington itself were to try Milosevic!
MICHEL COLLON
The “Tribunal” is only interested in putting Milosevic on trial - not
Sharon, nor Pinochet nor the Murderer Generals from Turkey: Is it
impartial? Financed by the United States government and by Americain
millionaires, it refuses to investigate the war-crimes committed by NATO
and by the Albanian terrorists: Is it independent? Its modus-operandi
throws overboard numerous principles of law: Is it legal? We have a
portrait of a very bizarre “Tribunal”….
Should Milosevic go on trial in the Hague? Whatever your opinion of the
former President of Yugoslavia (and on the people really responsible for
the wars in the Balkans) should he not have the same right as any other
man to be tried by a fair and neutral tribunal that respects the law?
According to article 16 of the statute book of this famous War Crime
Tribunal, the Prosecutor is to act independently and not be subject to
orders from any government. According to article 32, the expenses of the
tribunal must be covered by the United Nations Budget. These two
principles are constantly being thrown out of the window
The President of the Tribunal, Gabriella Kirk McDonald, herself, told
the United States Supreme Court “"We benefited from the strong support
of concerned governments and dedicated individuals such as Secretary
Albright. As the permanent representative to the United Nations, she had
worked with unceasing resolve to establish the Tribunal. Indeed, we
often refer to her as the "mother of the Tribunal”. What a charming
mother! She declared on national television that sending five hundred
thousand Iraki children to their death was “justified”!
When the War Crimes Tribunal’s Chief Prosecutor, Louise Arbour indicted
Milosevic, guess whom she informed first… Bill Clinton – two days before
informing the rest of the world. Like her successor, Carla Del Ponte,
she often appeared in public with US officials. In 1996 she met the
Secretary-General of NATO and its European Commander in Chief “to
discuss the logistics of co-operation,” before signing a “memorandum of
mutual understanding”.
So who is paying the Piper?…..
Well, between 1994 and 1995, the War Crimes Tribunal received from the
US government $700,000 cash and $2.3 million worth of computer
equipment. From the Rockefeller foundation it received $50,000 and from
the US Multi-Millionaire speculator, George Soros, $150,000. Soros was
financing, at the same time, the main Albanian separatist newspaper in
Kosovo. Other donors: The giant Time Warner media empire (this might
explain some of the media silence on the dark sides of the War Crimes
Tribunal). And then there is the Oh, so official “Institute for Peace”
set up by President Reagan. A large number of the War Crimes Tribunal
lawyers come from the Coalition for International Justice, founded and
financed by …. Yes, you’ve guessed – George Soros. In May 2000 its lady
President McDonald thanked the US government for “generously providing
$500,000.” “ The moral imperative to end the violence in the region is
shared by all, including the corporate sector, she said. I am pleased,
therefore, that a major corporation has recently donated computer
equipment worth three million dollars".
With sponsors such as these, it is easy to understand why the War Crimes
Tribunal only pursues the enemies of the United States. That is why the
Croat and Muslim Nationalist leaders remain unpunished for their crimes
of ethnic cleansing during the wars of 1991 to 1995. Likewise the
leaders of the KLA and of NATO who were responsible for an illegal war
and for deliberately destroying the civil infrastructure of Yugoslavia
and for using unlawful weapons (cluster bombs and depleted uranium
bombs). Here are the real reasons for pursuing Milosevic:
1) An attempt to lay guilt on the Serbian people as a whole and thereby
hide the fact that the USA and Germany provoked and encouraged the wars
in Yugoslavia.
2) The wish to intimidate a Head of State who resisted globalisation.
3) The need to whitewash NATO’s criminal war, whose pretences and
media-lies have fallen through.
Sources: “An Impartial Tribunal, really?” by the Canadian lawyer
Christopher Black and the “Illegal basis of the War Crimes Tribunal” by
the Yugoslav lawyer Kosta Cavoski
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski.
10 principles of law violated by the International War Crimes Tribunal
–
The Tribunal, in fact, betrays several totally fundamental principles
of law: the separation of power (executive, legislative and judicial),
equality between prosecution and defence, presumption of innocence till
proved guilty….
1) The International War Crimes Tribunal was founded in 1993 by the
United Nations Security Council (15 members dominated by the great
powers and the US veto) on the insistance of Senator Albright. The
normal channel for creating such a tribunal, as the United Nations
Secretary General pointed out at the time, would have been “via an
International Treaty established and approved by the Member States
permitting them full exercise of their sovereignty.** However,
Washington imposed an arbitrary interpretation of Chapter VII of the
United Nations Charter, that allows the Security Council to take
“special measures” to restore International peace. Is the Creation of a
Tribunal a “special measure”? Hardly. The International War Crimes
Tribunal itself is not legal.
2) Without precedent in the history of law, the Tribunal was empowered
with the task of setting up its own laws and regulations – regulations
that it has in fact modified frequently. Through a totally ludicrous
procedure for making changes, the President can make them on his own and
have them ratified by fax by the other judges! (rule 6).
3) Here’s another creative innovation. The laws of the International War
Crimes Tribunal can be retrospective - edited and tailored to fit the
facts after the event.
4) Worse still: the Prosecutor can also change these rules (the defence
can’t). And there is no "investigating judge" enquiring into charge and
counter-charge. The Prosecutor conducts the enquiry any way he pleases.
5) The Court can refuse a defence lawyer or simply not listen to him if
it finds him “aggressive” (rule 46).
6) The Prosecutor can with the approval of the judges, refuse to allow
council for the defence to consult certain books, documents, photos and
other material proofs (rule 66).
7) Moreover, the source of testimony and information can stay secret.
This means that the CIA agents can fill their dossiers with illegally
gathered accusations (through phone tapping, corruption, theft) without
having to submit to any kind of verification or cross-examination.
8) Representatives of other States (participants in the conflict, but
allied to the United States) can also submit confidential information
without having to undergo any questioning whatsoever.
9) An indictment can remain secret “in the interests of justice” (rule
53), so the accused cannot defend himself in the normal way.
10) A suspect, i.e. someone who has not even been indicted, can be
detained for ninety days before being charged – ample time to extract a
forced confession. Then rule 92 stipulates than confessions will be
deemed trustworthy unless the accused can prove the contrary. Whereas,
everywhere else in the world, the accused is presumed innocent until
proved guilty.
No national tribunal, in the United States or anywhere else in the world
would operate in such a blatantly unlawful or arbitrary manner. But when
it comes to condemning the enemies of the United States of America
principles of law no longer count. According to the masters of the
world, right belongs to the strongest and the richest.
* Speech at the Council for International Relations, New York, 12th May
2000.
** Report No X S/25704, section 18.
---
Questa lista e' provvisoriamente curata da componenti
dell'ex Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'",
oggi "Comitato Promotore dell'Assemblea Antimperialista":
> http://www.tuttinlotta.org
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono questa struttura, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB (non aggiornato):
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vuoi comprare - ma anche vendere - on line?
da oggi hai una piazza tutta per te, 24 ore su 24.
fatti un giro e vedrai che non te ne pentirai.
http://www.domeus.it/ad1335520/domeus.bid.it
Se vuoi cancellarti da questo gruppo, clicca qui: http://www.domeus.it/info/unsubscribe
the United States Government and US Multi-Nationals
It’s as if Washington itself were to try Milosevic!
MICHEL COLLON
The “Tribunal” is only interested in putting Milosevic on trial - not
Sharon, nor Pinochet nor the Murderer Generals from Turkey: Is it
impartial? Financed by the United States government and by Americain
millionaires, it refuses to investigate the war-crimes committed by NATO
and by the Albanian terrorists: Is it independent? Its modus-operandi
throws overboard numerous principles of law: Is it legal? We have a
portrait of a very bizarre “Tribunal”….
Should Milosevic go on trial in the Hague? Whatever your opinion of the
former President of Yugoslavia (and on the people really responsible for
the wars in the Balkans) should he not have the same right as any other
man to be tried by a fair and neutral tribunal that respects the law?
According to article 16 of the statute book of this famous War Crime
Tribunal, the Prosecutor is to act independently and not be subject to
orders from any government. According to article 32, the expenses of the
tribunal must be covered by the United Nations Budget. These two
principles are constantly being thrown out of the window
The President of the Tribunal, Gabriella Kirk McDonald, herself, told
the United States Supreme Court “"We benefited from the strong support
of concerned governments and dedicated individuals such as Secretary
Albright. As the permanent representative to the United Nations, she had
worked with unceasing resolve to establish the Tribunal. Indeed, we
often refer to her as the "mother of the Tribunal”. What a charming
mother! She declared on national television that sending five hundred
thousand Iraki children to their death was “justified”!
When the War Crimes Tribunal’s Chief Prosecutor, Louise Arbour indicted
Milosevic, guess whom she informed first… Bill Clinton – two days before
informing the rest of the world. Like her successor, Carla Del Ponte,
she often appeared in public with US officials. In 1996 she met the
Secretary-General of NATO and its European Commander in Chief “to
discuss the logistics of co-operation,” before signing a “memorandum of
mutual understanding”.
So who is paying the Piper?…..
Well, between 1994 and 1995, the War Crimes Tribunal received from the
US government $700,000 cash and $2.3 million worth of computer
equipment. From the Rockefeller foundation it received $50,000 and from
the US Multi-Millionaire speculator, George Soros, $150,000. Soros was
financing, at the same time, the main Albanian separatist newspaper in
Kosovo. Other donors: The giant Time Warner media empire (this might
explain some of the media silence on the dark sides of the War Crimes
Tribunal). And then there is the Oh, so official “Institute for Peace”
set up by President Reagan. A large number of the War Crimes Tribunal
lawyers come from the Coalition for International Justice, founded and
financed by …. Yes, you’ve guessed – George Soros. In May 2000 its lady
President McDonald thanked the US government for “generously providing
$500,000.” “ The moral imperative to end the violence in the region is
shared by all, including the corporate sector, she said. I am pleased,
therefore, that a major corporation has recently donated computer
equipment worth three million dollars".
With sponsors such as these, it is easy to understand why the War Crimes
Tribunal only pursues the enemies of the United States. That is why the
Croat and Muslim Nationalist leaders remain unpunished for their crimes
of ethnic cleansing during the wars of 1991 to 1995. Likewise the
leaders of the KLA and of NATO who were responsible for an illegal war
and for deliberately destroying the civil infrastructure of Yugoslavia
and for using unlawful weapons (cluster bombs and depleted uranium
bombs). Here are the real reasons for pursuing Milosevic:
1) An attempt to lay guilt on the Serbian people as a whole and thereby
hide the fact that the USA and Germany provoked and encouraged the wars
in Yugoslavia.
2) The wish to intimidate a Head of State who resisted globalisation.
3) The need to whitewash NATO’s criminal war, whose pretences and
media-lies have fallen through.
Sources: “An Impartial Tribunal, really?” by the Canadian lawyer
Christopher Black and the “Illegal basis of the War Crimes Tribunal” by
the Yugoslav lawyer Kosta Cavoski
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski.
10 principles of law violated by the International War Crimes Tribunal
–
The Tribunal, in fact, betrays several totally fundamental principles
of law: the separation of power (executive, legislative and judicial),
equality between prosecution and defence, presumption of innocence till
proved guilty….
1) The International War Crimes Tribunal was founded in 1993 by the
United Nations Security Council (15 members dominated by the great
powers and the US veto) on the insistance of Senator Albright. The
normal channel for creating such a tribunal, as the United Nations
Secretary General pointed out at the time, would have been “via an
International Treaty established and approved by the Member States
permitting them full exercise of their sovereignty.** However,
Washington imposed an arbitrary interpretation of Chapter VII of the
United Nations Charter, that allows the Security Council to take
“special measures” to restore International peace. Is the Creation of a
Tribunal a “special measure”? Hardly. The International War Crimes
Tribunal itself is not legal.
2) Without precedent in the history of law, the Tribunal was empowered
with the task of setting up its own laws and regulations – regulations
that it has in fact modified frequently. Through a totally ludicrous
procedure for making changes, the President can make them on his own and
have them ratified by fax by the other judges! (rule 6).
3) Here’s another creative innovation. The laws of the International War
Crimes Tribunal can be retrospective - edited and tailored to fit the
facts after the event.
4) Worse still: the Prosecutor can also change these rules (the defence
can’t). And there is no "investigating judge" enquiring into charge and
counter-charge. The Prosecutor conducts the enquiry any way he pleases.
5) The Court can refuse a defence lawyer or simply not listen to him if
it finds him “aggressive” (rule 46).
6) The Prosecutor can with the approval of the judges, refuse to allow
council for the defence to consult certain books, documents, photos and
other material proofs (rule 66).
7) Moreover, the source of testimony and information can stay secret.
This means that the CIA agents can fill their dossiers with illegally
gathered accusations (through phone tapping, corruption, theft) without
having to submit to any kind of verification or cross-examination.
8) Representatives of other States (participants in the conflict, but
allied to the United States) can also submit confidential information
without having to undergo any questioning whatsoever.
9) An indictment can remain secret “in the interests of justice” (rule
53), so the accused cannot defend himself in the normal way.
10) A suspect, i.e. someone who has not even been indicted, can be
detained for ninety days before being charged – ample time to extract a
forced confession. Then rule 92 stipulates than confessions will be
deemed trustworthy unless the accused can prove the contrary. Whereas,
everywhere else in the world, the accused is presumed innocent until
proved guilty.
No national tribunal, in the United States or anywhere else in the world
would operate in such a blatantly unlawful or arbitrary manner. But when
it comes to condemning the enemies of the United States of America
principles of law no longer count. According to the masters of the
world, right belongs to the strongest and the richest.
* Speech at the Council for International Relations, New York, 12th May
2000.
** Report No X S/25704, section 18.
---
Questa lista e' provvisoriamente curata da componenti
dell'ex Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'",
oggi "Comitato Promotore dell'Assemblea Antimperialista":
> http://www.tuttinlotta.org
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono questa struttura, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB (non aggiornato):
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vuoi comprare - ma anche vendere - on line?
da oggi hai una piazza tutta per te, 24 ore su 24.
fatti un giro e vedrai che non te ne pentirai.
http://www.domeus.it/ad1335520/domeus.bid.it
Se vuoi cancellarti da questo gruppo, clicca qui: http://www.domeus.it/info/unsubscribe