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.

Hoplite, what is there to address? Legally, he is innocent until proven otherwise. Everything else is a speculation.

And as long as you hold to the position that there is no venue in which he can be tried, his guilt or innocence doesn't have to be addressed, does it Kosta?

Since ICTY is based neither on internationally formulated principles (there has never been an international convention on the definition on crimes against humanity, let alone an agreement on what it represents), nor legal precedence of similar cases, it is incapable of arriving at Miloshevich verdict in a judicial sense as we understand justice today.

You can argue crimes from the ICTY Statute described in Aricle 5, Crimes against humanity, and selected crimes from Article 3, Violations of the laws or customs of war, based upon this tactic, but the rest of the crimes described in the ICTY Statute are firmly grounded in International Law and Treaties, to wit:

368. Yugoslavia was the second country in the world, immediately after Switzerland, to ratify the Fourth Geneva Convention (at the same time as the first three) and the fourth to ratify the Additional Protocols. By ratifying these instruments, Yugoslavia undertook to abide by them, as well as to implement the various peacetime measures they envisage. One of these measures is to incriminate all acts aimed at violating the Geneva regulations.

Additionally:

369. The Criminal Code of Yugoslavia punishes the criminal acts envisaged by the Geneva Conventions. Also, the Law on Total People's Defence, in article 93, makes it expressly incumbent on members of the armed forces to respect, in carrying out combat operations always and under all conditions the rules of international armed conflict and the humane treatment of the wounded and captured enemy, as well as to protect the population and observe other rules of that law, in accordance with the Constitution and the Law.

So not only are the Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 enumerated in the ICTY Statute in Article 2 proscribed by a document which Yugoslavia was a signatory to, they are proscribed by Yugoslav laws covering both the JNA and it's successor and Serbian civilians (read paramilitaries) as well.
(Milosevic's Yugoslavia claimed to be the successor state of the SFRY, see UN doc A/46/915 so non-signatory status for Belgrade is an unsupportable contention.)

As to the ICTY's Article 3, Violations of the laws or customs of war, the following acts in blue are proscribed by previously existing international treaty:

(a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings;
(d) seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science;
(e) plunder of public or private property.

See:
(a) Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gasses, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare Text
(d) Convention and Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, ratified by Yugoslavia on February 13th, 1956

The ICTY's Article 4, Genocide, is taken directly from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which the SFRY signed and ratified on on 11 December 1948 and 29 August 1950.

The ICTY's Article 5, as you suggested, matches pretty closely with the Nuremburg Tribunal's statutes, with the exception of imprisonment, torture and rape.

Article 7 from the ICTY, Individual Criminal Responsibilty, is drawn directly, again, from the Geneva Conventions, Part V, Section II:

Art 86. Failure to act

1. The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict shall repress grave breaches, and take measures necessary to suppress all other breaches, of the Conventions or of this Protocol which result from a failure to act when under a duty to do so.

2. The fact that a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol was committed by a subordinate does not absolve his superiors from penal or disciplinary responsibility, as the case may be, if they knew, or had information which should have enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time, that he was committing or was going to commit such a breach and if they did not take all feasible measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach.

Art 87. Duty of commanders

1. The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict shall require military commanders, with respect to members of the armed forces under their command and other persons under their control, to prevent and, where necessary, to suppress and to report to competent authorities breaches of the Conventions and of this Protocol.

2. In order to prevent and suppress breaches, High Contracting Parties and Parties to the conflict shall require that, commensurate with their level of responsibility, commanders ensure that members of the armed forces under their command are aware of their obligations under the Conventions and this Protocol.

3. The High Contracting Parties and Parties to the conflict shall require any commander who is aware that subordinates or other persons under his control are going to commit or have committed a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol, to initiate such steps as are necessary to prevent such violations of the Conventions or this Protocol, and, where appropriate, to initiate disciplinary or penal action against violators thereof.

So from your original claim as to the ICTY's not being formulated upon international principles - you are left with the following:

ICTY Article 3

(b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings;
(e) plunder of public or private property.

ICTY Article 5

(a) murder;
(b) extermination;
(c) enslavement;
(d) deportation;
(e) imprisonment;
(f) torture;
(g) rape;
(h) persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds;
(i) other inhumane acts.

So is your position then that the above are not internationally prosecutable crimes by virtue of the fact that they've never been prosecuted in an international trubunal before? If so, that's pretty damn weak, Kosta - the initial iteration of any endeavor can be attacked on 'precedence' grounds, but look at the crimes you are attempting to circumvent and tell me that they're not supposedly crimes in Yugoslavia and that a change of venue from Belgrade to the Hague eliminates any chance for justice to be meted out or justifies the perpetrators going off scott free - which is exactly what was happening under Milosevic and continues to happen under the present regime when we rely on Yugoslavia to enforce both it's domestic laws and international obligations by treaty.

No one should escape justice.

And just because some have is no reason to let other perpetrators go free - Milosevic violated laws and is being tried for his transgressions, and your logic bites you in the ass here, for if we let Milosevic go based upon an unequal application of justice, then those whom you cite for past crimes can use the Milosevic case as precedent and gain immunity from prosecution as well.

But do not hide your prejudice and hatred behind a facade of judicial principles.

Whatever Kosta - if you're going to lose this argument, at least do so with dignity and spare me the faulty analysis of my motivations.

I am disappointed, Hoplite. You don’t get it, do you? This is not about asking clemency for Miloshevich, but an attack on double standards, i.e. hypocricy.

I don’t ever remember asking that Miloshevich be set free. You must have me confused with someone else.

My beef is not with the fact that he has been charged, but with the institution that charged him, as well as with the double standards involved, for many of the provisions of ICTY you mention are included in the International Criminal Court, which the United States flatly rejects.

In addition, ICTY uses secret indictments, secret witnesses, a judge and a prosecutor all in one and the same person, allows hearsay evidence (as deemed admissible entirely by the justices and by no other standards whatsoever), and other provisions of this tribunal that make it less than an accpetbale "court" in a judicial sense as we understand justice and certainly not the type of court you would want to be given a "fair" trial in.

My beef is also with the fact that the United States has been behind establishing ICTY, yet it doesn’t think its own creation is worthy enough to try its creator. Well, Hoplite, if it isn’t worthy of trying Americans, it’s not worthy trying Serbs either!

As long as we have war criminals in our Senate, as long as our “Arkans” are termed “heroes,“ as long as we pretend that Lt Calley is a simple murder and not a mass-murdering war criminal, set free after 3 years in house arrest, as long as all his 25 charged accomplices are innocent of raping and murdering 300 civilians in cold blood, as long as the US claims exemption from international justice for its citizens, I will object to ICTY as a legitimate body, and I don’t care under what charters , statutes and other man-made creations it has been given the “right” to do its ad hoc political business masquerading as “justice!”

FYI, there are no less than eleven international texts defining crimes against humanity, all slightly different in terms of definitions of the crime and legal elements. Originally known as the “crimes against the laws of humanity,” these provisions were introduced in 1919. The United States and Japan rejected them, on grounds that the “crimes against the laws of humanity” were violations of “moral and not positive laws.”

The US had a remarkable change of heart 26 years later at the Nüremberg Trial in 1945, when it supported inclusion of crimes against humanity [Article 6(c)] as positive international law. Since 1945, there has not been a single international convention ratifying them globally, but they find their way into the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda (which, despite it grotesque horrors and sheer number of civilian deaths, is a stillbirth for all practical purposes because it‘s outside of our “strategic interest sphere“), as well as in the notorious International Criminal Court, which the United States -- once again -- rejects en toto, and not only in part.

If Miloshevich is guilty under “command responsibility” reaching all the way to a sitting head of state, then surely an equal and parallel responsibility rests with Tudjman, Isetbegovic, Hashim Thaci, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Lyndon B. Johnson, etc. for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed with or without their knowledge by people under their command.

If you are genuinely dedicated to seeing war criminals punished in principle, then your activism should extend beyond Miloshevich. So far you have given unimpressive lip service to other candidates in the Balkans (i.e. Izetbegovic and Oric, or Thaci and his gangs), and western leaders are out of the question.

This is not about Miloshevich, it’s about principles. Some people have them; others don’t. It's obvious who they are.

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.