Posted on 12/12/2002 4:11:02 PM PST by vooch
Thursday December 12, 2002 at 2:03 am
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?
Laber finally admitted: "I understand now what you're saying."
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."
Laber: "We have to draw the line somewhere, we don't want to go into the past."
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 shortly said: "I'm not competent for that."
Milosevic quipped: Contradictio in adjecto. She's not competent, full stop.
Laber just brought her reports, she was a courier and you don't argue the contents of the mail with a courier.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia
No paralles here?
'Mistreated Sudetendeutschen same same Mistreaded Kosovo-Albanians'
'Agree or get bombed'
What about the War-crime of all War-crimes: waging a war of agression against a souvereign state 1939 vs. 1999?
KOCTA what's your take on this historical 'parallel'?
Obviously it's either diminishing Hitler, or exaggerating Miloshevich. In both, there is no "parallel." What most people suggest is "similarity" if not "equivalency" between the two, which is nonsense.
The State Department and western liberal media, aided by some special-interest groups, repeatedly likened Serbs (in general) to Nazis, and Miloshevich to Hitler. They have forced the Nazification of Serbs through manipulation of facts (fabrication of lies), such as the Omarska "death camp," the Trepcha mine, and other frauds that are still being regurgitated in such high places as ICTY as "evidence."
At issue is the so-called "command responsability," which the Croats so readily dismissed in the case of Gen. Bobetko, and ICTY somehow decided to ignore. Bobetko was indicted on grounds that, under his command, alleged war crimes were committed. He probably never gave the orders for such crimes to be committed, but he also failed to prevent them, which is negligence.
Legally, any person can be held accountable for negliglent wrongdoing, whether that person was aware that he or she is being negligent or not. An unsuspecting store clerk who sells you a defective battery that exlpodes in your face is liable to be sued for negligence as much as the manufacturer.
Clearly, this legalistic logic (if one can call it that) stipulates that anyone can be negligent and therefore liable for any harm resulting form such negligence, whether voluntary or involuntary.
The only problem with that is that, technically at least, every commander-in-chief, and every president is therefore liable for the wrongdoing of every one of his or her soldiers' conduct. If Miloshevich is responsable for the wrongdoings of Serb military formations in Bosnia, or Kosovo, whether he issued a direct order or not, then by the same logic Lyndon B. Johnson is responsible for the Mi Lai massacre.
The question is: where do you draw the line? At the company level? At the battallion level; brigade; division; corps; army, etc? If soemthing happens on your watch, you are expected to take the responsability for that (whatever that means), byt an apology is a good start. We all know this doesn't happen because of human nature and because of different perceptions of responsability and negligence.
The idea behind the witchhunt on Miloshevich is to scare other (non-Western) heads of state into being more forceful in exerting their control over their junior ranks by knowing that they will be heald accuntable, and on their ability to provide leadership by preventing rogue units from commiting war crimes, instead of simply saying "it wasn't me."
Is this just? Of course not? Mkaing an example of Miloshevich is neither unbiased nor just. He is the one who got caught when Djindjich pulled a Milosh Obilich trick of delivering Karadjordje's head to the Turkish Sultan.
KOCTA
VRN
Put your money where your mouth is, then.
Tie Hitler to Truskolasy or Babi Yar through a direct order.
Have fun, Balto - and yes, given it's come to this you may have to wait forever.
As to Milosevic being used, I suppose you're crying over the way Plavsic was used in exactly the same manner to counter Bosnian Serb hardliners? Nah, doubt it.
You're analogy is 180 degrees out of phase with reality - Hitler was given free reign in Czechoslovakia whereas Milosevic wasn't given the same in Kosovo.
The analogy is only good to a point, however - there are parallels, but Milosevic was no Hitler. The National Socialist Party and the Serbian Socialist Party aren't the same vulture by any stretch of the imagination, but they're still both carrion eaters.
With all due respect, Kosta, this is simply wrong.
The United States had prohibitions against what Calley did, Officers of the United States Army acted upon those prohibitions during Calley's killing spree in Mi Lai, and Calley was ultimately held accountable - though his sentence cannot in any way be construed as being sufficient to address his crime. In short, he is an object of contempt in today's Army and the part of apologist for Calley is played by the likes of fringe groups like the John Birchers, not mainstream American political groups.
You may compare and contrast Calley to Mladic in any way you see fit - for that is where the ultimate command responsibility on the military side for both sides of this equation lie.
I would also add that our purpose in Viet Nam was to save the villagers from communism, not drive them out of our area of operations, which was the obvious purpose of Milosevic's actions in regards to Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
In summation, the Milosevic-Johnson analogy is simply wrong both in fact and context.
NATO together with the muslim albanian terrorists of the KLA were given free reign in Kosovo. Therefore my analogy is correct in comparing NATO to Hitler in regard of the ultimatum Munich1938 vs. Rambouillet1999. But NATO failed in achiving access to the whole of Yugoslavia as envisaged in Appendix B, whereas Hitler successfully conquered all of Czechoslowakia and not only the Sudetenland.
It's an interessting view on history though.
By the way, why should someone give free reign to Milosevic in Kosovo? At that time, Kosovo was legally part of the souvereign state of Serbia/Yugoslavia.
How could you offer someone free reign in his own land? Should I offer George W. Bush free reign in California? We could do it together Hoplite, and let's see what George is going to tell us.
Yes, it is, because Johnson was Calley's commander in chief and Karadzic, not Milosevic, was Mladic's commander in chief. You see, we can also agree sometimes. ;)
I see your point, but I also must respectfully disagre, in principle, not in context or fact. The purpose should not jusitfy or lessen a war crime. The whole idea behind holding people in charge responsable for their subordinates' actions is in the concept of negligence (mismanagement, lack of control where there should be one, etc.), and not whether the nature of the operation was noble or henious.
The Croatians used the same argument in the case of General Bobetko: the people under his command were doing 'their constiututional duty' when the alleged war cimes in the Medak Pocket occurred, so the general could not possibly be responsable for them. How does that follow? Maybe I am missing something?
I may be wrong on this, but it is my understanding that holding those in charge responsable is a matter of principle and not of aim. The way I see it: police are doing a good thing, but are not allowed or justified in committing a crime while fighting crime.
A goal does not justify the means.
A goal does not justify the means.
I concur with these statements, and think our difference lies in the relationship between the actors (Calley and Medina) and those ultimately responsible (Westmoreland and Johnson) in the American side of this equation vs. those on the Serbian side.
I contend that direct responsibility (commission) and negligence in addressing those crimes of comission (omission) do not extend up to the pinnacle of power as they do in the case of Milosevic and his forces in the Balkans.
I find this to be an edifying read on the matter, though it is still disturbing and shameful to see just how far up the chain of command the negligence extended.
As to Bobetko, given the failure of the local judiciary to take the matter up, he has a date with the ICTY, and I look forward to his appearance.
End of discussion.
End of discussion.
You have no arguments, or what? I pointed out some interesting historical parallels to you. Everything you can come up with, is this Hitleresque talk about nationalist views, race, ethnicity, blahblah....! I thought I have seen you already reaching your lowest points on FR. You are always good for a negative surprise, Hoplite.
That Hitler ordered brutal campaigns, especially against Slavs and Jews, is so well documented that I find it hard to believe you need proof of that. That Hitler isn't recorded as saying "When you get to Babi Yar, commit this list of atrocities" doesn't refute this.
Have fun, Balto - and yes, given it's come to this you may have to wait forever.
Come to what? You needing proof that Hitler ordered atrocities against Jews and Slavs?
As to Milosevic being used, I suppose you're crying over the way Plavsic was used in exactly the same manner to counter Bosnian Serb hardliners?
Nope, nor do I cry for the Guarantor. Just stating the facts.
So now there weren't direct orders from Hitler?
Wow, there was no direct orders from Milosevic for any of his forces' atrocities that we're aware of either, just the same pervasive culture of non-accountability and goal of an ethnically pure state in the conquered territories.
Imagine that.
Given Milosevic's control over the Tigers, as I pointed out earlier, do you still need a written piece of paper with Milosevic's signature on it before you concede his responsibility in the matter of warcrimes committed in his wars?
You're going around in circles. You'll find my response to this here.
Hoplite is no idiot, but unscruppleless in that he stays at the 'paid' job of defending the indefensible.
You can tell by his retorts that he's stressed out. He's being tortured by his controllers to the point that all he does is 'babble'.
Are you talking about these "conquered" territories that belonged to the bosnian serbs in the first place?
Compare this to the dayton-borders of Republika Srpska.
And as I said, Karadzic was Mladic's commander in chief, not Milosevic.
Private ownership of land of those households whose head of the family is of Serbian nationality in percents in Bosnia and Herzegovina (according to settlements) according to the population census on March 31, 1981 (click on the image for full size) 
Yeah, all circly and stuff.
The position is this - either you concede that Hitler did not need to issue direct orders for the massacres perpetrated by his troops, thus also conceding that Milosevic need not have issued direct orders to be culpable for the massacres perpetrated by his troops, or you hold to the position that direct orders are needed for culpability, whereupon I will apply your position back to Babi Yar, etc.
This particular point has been won - it's just a question of how long it takes for you to see it, Balto.
End of discussion.
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.