Dec 12th Report from UN Tribunal - Milosevic vs. Humna Rights Watch

Jeri Laber, the woman of the human rights, was this obnoxious combination of ignorance and arrogance which could be noticed in all these NGO warriors. One of our columnists coined a suitable name for them: anti-war profiteers (as opposed to simple, more honest, merely money-oriented war profiteers). This lot is downright dirty-handed and dirty-minded.

By penning their worthless 'reports', full of cheap politicking, ridiculous mistakes and vague generalizations, pretending they're defending the human rights of some abused people (without even deigning to put the facts right), they play into the hands of the governments who ordered these reports and at the same time they are not at all squeamish to accept the money. Our own type of such anti-war profiteers has one more layer to it: they are commissioned to quench even the last trace of any national feeling and pride within the tortured Serbian people. The three wicked witches of Belgrade are Biljana Kovacevic-Vuco (Yugoslav Committee of Human Rights Lawyers), Natasa Kandic (Humanitarian Law Centre) and Sonja Biserko (Serbian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights). They drafted (if not completely authored) the large chunks of the ICTY indictments, with a little help from Mesic.

They created the refrigerator truck news and dully disseminated/manipulated each anti-Serb slander there is. The last one named, Biserko, is among those 14 witnesses that the Prosecution had renounced in order to extend Babic. Good riddance! I'm physically unable to listen to the dribble of either one of them for more than 10 minutes at the time.

If you want to know more, to 'follow the money trail' and to see how the agenda, the ideology and the sources of funding are the same for the Human Rights Watch, the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, the International Crisis Group… and to follow the trail of the 'Human Rights Crowd' in the Balkans, read 3 highly informative articles by Gilles d'Aymery (http://www.swans.com/library/art7/ga109.html …/ga110.html …/ga111.html).

Well, if we were rid of Biserko by a lucky escape, we couldn't evade her more prominent Helsinki-Committee sister, Jeri Laber.

This one looks a bit more sophisticated than her Balkans counterparts, but her arrogance is that much greater. It was her downfall: she revealed her utter ignorance about the region and events in question and she didn't care one bit, concluding that she is 'here just to bring these 2 reports' (?!).

And these reports, one re human rights abuse in Kosovo and the other in Croatia, are so vague and generalized ('a certain small village', 'many people are believed to be executed'), full of material mistakes and plain stupidities ('KLA didn't exist then and I have been impressed how peaceful the Army of the Albanians was'), and above all highly politicised in each of its premises and conclusions ('the situation equal to apartheid and racism', 'HW appeals for the sanctions to be introduced against the Serbian Government').

In addition to anonymous informants, alleged victims of abuse, the bulk of material for the reports has been provided by talking to our 3 humanitarian Amazons and Mesic ('intellectuals, newspapermen, members of the Presidency')! The total number of the interviews for each report is about 30, Amazons & Mesic included. Truly a large, representative sample.

Of course, the Greater Serbia slander was amply used; when Nice asked how that came about, Laber answered 'this was in general use, in the Western press in any case'(?!). Even judge Robinson wanted to know whence the claim of JNA acting without authorization came. Laber said: "I cannot say what is this information based upon; perhaps they [HW staff] spoke with some members of the Presidency and draw such a conclusion."

After concocting such a precise, unbiased report, Jeri & staff would try to hand-deliver it to the culprits (in this case, Milosevic and General Adzic); when refused reception by them and instead received by lower-level officials, and later on answered in writing by the Chief of Cabinet, they regarded this as the sign that 'Serbia assumes full responsibility for all crimes in its territory'. This, together with both 'reports', was trumpeted all over media and sent to 'relevant Governments'.

To demonstrate objectivity, Laber presented supposedly similar report, handed over to Tudjman (this time in person), to which he replied he will 'investigate it'. Good show! But, one can take just one look at this other report prepared for Tudjman to see the sly doubletalk: this is the 'report on the human rights abuse by the Serbian local authorities and by Croatian individuals'. The Croatian Police and the National Guard Units are 'individuals', while JNA and Serbian Government are accused in toto .

Of course, other than this initial show no further development happened, no sanctions against CRO were asked/imposed. Nevertheless, Nice was thrilled, asking a rhetorical question: "Was this the sign of your trying to be unbiased?", and he quoted few sentences stating 'sufferings of the Serbs in the WW2', when 'thousands were killed'.

Jumping to and fro between the 2 reports, Nice made Laber talk profusely about the situation in Kosovo back in 1981, irritating May so much (history!!!) that he snapped even at Nice: "Such a detailed revisiting of the Kosovo history is not helping us at all in this moment." Nice sheepishly said: "We have always claimed that this all mutually fits together; this is a woman who visited all these regions before the wars."

So, the woman who makes all this to fit together, summed up all this by repeating that 'yes, they've denied all our accusations, but that letter signifies also their acceptance of responsibility'. Obviously, it is mortally dangerous to exchange any mail with these rabid NGOs, because that way you automatically recognize their importance.

After such a disgusting performance, Milosevic jumped with both feet on Laber; May tried his best to rescue her by interrupting 'We shall decide the admissibility of hearsay evidence", "This is irrelevant", "This is for us to decide".

After May prevented questioning the anonymity of informants, possibility to contact them and offer them protection of the ICTY to testify, the principle of direct procedure in any other court that the HW should defend and the separation of the right for self-determination from the human rights corpus, Milosevic then switched to the 'reports' and shredded them to pieces. Opening one of them at random, he quoted one sentence, describing one alleged human rights abuse. Then he asked: "Which village was that and which event?" Laber didn't know.

Milosevic quoted next sentence, describing alleged perpetrators, wearing 'yellow camouflage uniforms', and asked Laber whether she knew that there were no such uniforms in any ex-YU region, that these are the uniforms used in desert regions. Laber 'couldn't say what was the matter there'. Milosevic expressed his astonishment at such imprecise text, in collision with the 'highest professional standards' that her organization boasts of. Laber stated she did 'believe in the competence of people who made the report; didn't come here to defend the report paragraph by paragraph, but to bring the report.'

Milosevic proceeded by quoting from the statement, describing Laber's meeting in Belgrade (after she had been denied meeting with Milosevic and General Adzic) with 3 lower-level Army officers and '2 Foreign Affairs Ministry officials, Dr Micunovic and a certain Kostunica'.

He innocently asked her whether she was aware that Micunovic, current Speaker of the Federal Assembly, and Kostunica, current President of FRY, 'people who illegally delivered me here after they seized the power', were at that time two MPs from an opposition party, and not members of any Government. Laber showed contempt to these facts (why should she worry about some Balkan politicians, who was in what body and when, or whether her reports are precise or not?), saying it only matters what those people told her. Milosevic pointed out that this proves she was unable to understand such simple facts, which further indicates the other things were misunderstood as well; he then explained to this pigheaded lady that what they told her about Kosovo was exactly the same position she heard earlier from 3 Army representatives, as reported; was it not enough reason for her to believe it, when bitter political opponents stated the same?

Milosevic pressed on: "Was it not a logical mistake of yours, when you heard identical answer from those people as the answer you've got from the Army, to automatically lump them up in the Government?" For the first time, Laber let few moments to pass in silence. May panicked and jumped in: "No, no, this has nothing to do with this witness. You're now making your case here, and through this witness." Tapuskovic used the opportunity to further embarrass May, lingering at the unpleasant fact and getting back at him for all that snapping and barking; he stood up and supposedly 'clarified': "Your Honour, it has been a mistake, she thought that they were members of the Government, that they belong to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."

May was sarcastic: "Yes, we know that. We shall not lose any more time." But Milosevic wouldn't let go: "Don't you think this is a rather cardinal mistake, which destroys a picture of your organization being exact and precise?" May prevented the answer: "Mrs Laber, if you don't want to answer, and it seems to me this is totally senseless…" She didn't answer, of course.

All the rest was further humiliation of the humanitarian madam, obviously very tough and cynical from handling Soros-type funding in exchange for opinion shaping. She answered in the shortest possible way, with staccato annunciation and acid remarks. Milosevic pointed out her falsely-objective and hypocritical remarks about the sufferings of the Serbs in the WW2 in CRO, when 'thousands were killed'; he sharply told her there were hundreds of thousands , and not thousands killed.

Laber said they 'want to avoid sensationalism and always use lower figures'. Talking about Holocaust denier!

Milosevic wanted to know was it not logical for the Serbs in CRO to remember those things after their constitutional status has been revoked. Laber was insolent: "I have not studied the Constitution; I believe your word at face value."

Milosevic: "You and your colleagues were supposed to read it, dealing with it in your reports. Your organization and yourself didn't know what was going on there."

Milosevic: "This was not the past, this was the present condition and the change happening at that moment."

To get an idea of the expert staff going to fact-finding missions, in addition to Laber herself, a Columbia-graduated expert in sovietology (?!) (when her staff was still petit, she was engaged personally; now they're 200 and she just jets around the world, being wined and dined, and occasionally testifies) there were two other gentlemen and a girl called Ivana Nizic, personally recruited by Laber right after she finished Columbia.

Laber gave her a training in research techniques (one week? three weeks?) and off she goes! This is her 'competent, experienced staff, trained not to ask suggestive questions, familiar with the countries in question'. Naturally, Miss Nizic acquired necessary experience along the way and became the investigator - guess where? Yes, ICTY!

Pure political premises and conclusions of the 'reports' were too much for Tapuskovic to bear, so he stood up at the very beginning, trying to point out that on a similar occasion, when one of the Court's investigators testified about Kosovo, all his conclusions were left out from his report and only 'facts' remained. But, it was useless, May admitted everything, mistakes, stupidities, slander, Western media as a source.

The 'reports' stated "Serb occupation of the parts of Croatian territory". When Milosevic quoted the US General Charles Boyd as saying that 'contrary to the popular media position, the Serbs lived there for centuries",

Laber just brought her reports, she was a courier and you don't argue the contents of the mail with a courier.

From your link:

The truth is that six million Jews were put to death without a written order, without dissent or public discussions.

From your post:

That Hitler ordered the final solution is so well documented

The two are contradictory - get a clue already and start thinking before you start posting.

Again, we don't yet have documentary proof that Milosevic ordered any of the warcrimes that his forces perpetrated, and we may never get it, as is the case with Hitler, but his position in the chain of command is analogous to that of Hitler in his, and it is through the very same methods that Milosevic will be tied to those crimes, no matter how loud the ignorant and deceptive defenders of Milosevic raise their cry: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in neither case - deal with it.

If the JNA or the MUP archives yield such evidence it will be merely the icing on the cake upon which Milosevic is doing a face plant at the Hague.

It was the West that demanded Milosevic represent the Bosnian Serb interests at Dayton!

Really? Then what the hell was Momcilo Krajisnik doing there and why was he entertaining a notion that he, or any of the Pale delegation had any real power as far as agreeing to the terms of Dayton?

SRNA: White House Press Secretary, Nicholas Burns, claims that Milosevic was given power to decide on the fate of Bosnian Serbs, and that his decisions may not be questioned by the Assembly of Serbian Republic?

Mr.K.: That is not true. That is a fallacy, aimed at undermining the agreement we have reached through mediation of the Patriarch Pavle. President Milosevic is a member of the joint delegation, in which all delegates are equal. Only when there is a tie, President Milosevic's vote can be decisive. But even President Milosevic has to abide by certain rules that both we [Bosnian Serbs] and the Yugoslav part of the delegation have agreed upon.

source

Karadzic didn't go because he was a war criminal and would, and will, be arrested in any law abiding country in the world, and Milosevic went because he had the power to hold the Bosnian Serbs to any agreement he wanted to force upon them in order to save his butt.

Please note, Pale was forced, to comply with Dayton against their wishes.

More proof as to who was pulling the strings in Bosnia.

Then what the hell was Momcilo Krajisnik doing there and why was he entertaining a notion that he, or any of the Pale delegation had any real power as far as agreeing to the terms of Dayton?

Damned if I know, guess he served as a fig-leaf for the Bosnians Serbs. Wouldn't want to give the world the impression that Republica Srpska was part of Yugoslavia!

"At Dayton no one talked to Krajisnik; he was completely isolated in his room. No one talked to him."

__ Holbrooke

Thank you Hoplite on a very indepth answer. I will read it carefully several more times to make sure I didn't msis anything important.

In the meantime, I will give you some immediate thoughts to your reply:

Which part needs a definitive proof?

The assumption, of course! Assumption of guilt or liability is no proof, is it? A valid assumption is more likely to be proven, but an asusmption in itself cannot be a subsititue for proof.

International courts are either valid or invalid. If they are valid, they are valid for all, not some.

You must admit that blaming Lt Calley for everything and exhonorating his senior commanders along the chain is weak. Despite the conviction, right or wrong, Lt Calley is not referred to as a convicted war criminal. Similarily, if rape is a war crime, why is ex-SSG Rhongi also not officially classified as a convicted war cirminal?

In fact, can you name one American war criminal? I admit, I didn't do the research and this is simply free association. I don't recall ever reading about one.

So how then to address this culpability? Good question. I am not sure, not yet anyway. But we are setting a precedent that is not necessarily what we want. It seems very myopic.

Good post.

From that same link: "The killings were based on an oral order given by Hitler." There is no contradiction here with my statement "That Hitler ordered the final solution is so well documented...".

As for your comment Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in neither case, there is no absence of evidence linking Hitler to the slaughter of Jews, except in your distortion of what consituted an order in Nazi Germany. By your own confession, there is (currently) no evidence linking the guarantor to Srebrenica, so your attempts to compare the two situations is invalid.

And if Slobo's guilt will be determined solely by the fact that he ran Serbia while Bosnian Serb paramilitaries committed atrocities, then by their own confession western leaders dealt with one who they considered responsible for genocide.

Yes, there is most definitely a contradiction - documentation consists of - get this: documents, i.e., written orders. What you've got is Hitler's subordinates ordering massacres and deportation, but no written orders, documentary proof that is, of Hitler issuing orders covering those of his subordinates.

You will recall all the hue and cry over hearsay evidence in Milosevic's trial? The same is true of the method you are using to tie Hitler to his crimes - which is why documentary proof is preferred, but not necessary in these matters. David Irving and a couple of others have made careers out of using the same disingenous method you are using here for Milosevic to absolve Hitler of his crimes, but if you choose to remain blind to your folly, that's your business.

Just don't expect not to get figuratively smacked upside the head for your ignorance.

What we have in the case of Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, is forces under Milosevic committing war crimes - we don't have documentary proof that Milosevic ordered those crimes, but we have ample proof that his subordinates did - in the case of today's testimony his subordinates were the Serbian Interior Ministry troops, who were active in all three conflicts and who, as an organization, reported to (that is, were ordered around by and did not operate without the blessing of) Milosevic.

To paraphrase Aricle 147 of the 4th Geneva Convention:

War Crimes shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons* or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

From Article 4
*Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

and
Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Please note - one is not tried for war crimes per se, but for crimes that qualify as war crimes.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, so here's the source of what I posted.

The use of "war crime" to refer to a specific act, then, is dependent upon the circumstances in which the act took place - I'm not sure how the fact that Calley, Medina, and Ronghi were purported allies of those they victimized plays into this, but I have no qualms with thinking of Calley and Medina as war criminals.

Not to worry, I've got this whole 'we were in the same Army and they've disgraced the uniform' animosity thing directed at all three of them, and I think the sentiment is shared by the majority of my fellow veterans and those currently on active duty.

I'll catch the rest of your points after you've responded in full to my last.

It was the West that demanded Milosevic represent the Bosnian Serb interests at Dayton!
Really?

Read the first three sentences of the second paragraph and footnote 28. Holbrooke had no intention of dealing with the Bosnian Serbs.

"You [Milosevic] must speak for Pale."

He and Warren Christopher concluded that they would deal only with Milosevic!

Road to Dayton

No,Albi,VJ didn`t hide and run away!Far from it.VJ was almost ,intact,especially,oout of Kosovo.And,battle ready for a ground invasion.It didn`t run away ,it wasn`t scared and after the political agreement,withdrew,giving "a bird" to the surprised NATO observers.The ones that were avoiding open conflict was NATO warriors not VJ.

Speaking of "hiding and running away" that is a speciality of your KLA bandits:hiding behind NATO/US troops in Preshevo Valley and Macedonia.The moment VJ got a green light from NATO,your brave narco dealers vere utterly destroyed ,together with their "Commander" Leshi who promptly became "lesh"!Find someone to translate for you>

In Macedonia,your terrorists were saved by US conwoy who had prevented their destruction because American instructors were ammong them!

The day will come,"Brit" when everybody will be pissed off with your violence and land grabing!Then,you will face one on one your neighbours whose motherlands you have destabilised and almost destroyed!

I will see your "army" then!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.