Topic: Crime and Punishment
RAILROADING RADOVAN KARADZIC The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Hague is considering imposing a defense lawyer on former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic against his will.by Andy Wilcoxson
(libertarian)
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Much of the, for want of a better term, "news coverage" of the Radovan Karadzic war crimes trial in The Hague has teetered fatuously somewhere between the hysterical and the completely irrational. The coverage often amounts to little more than shrill and often childish name-calling with Karadzic continually referred to as a "butcher", a "demon", a "monster" and every other spiteful epitaph our so-called "journalists" can think to hurl at him.
Comparisons to Milosevic Do Not Wash
The media is filled with vacuous comparisons between Radovan Karadzic's trial and Slobodan Milosevic's trial, even though there are major differences in the defense strategies pursued by the two men.
Although both men chose to represent themselves, Milosevic insisted on appearing in the dock alone. Unlike Milosevic, Karadzic wants to be assisted in court by a team of international lawyers who would be physically present in the courtroom to advise him on the conduct of his case and to argue law and other procedural matters on his behalf.
Milosevic had nothing but contempt for the Tribunal. He referred to the Prosecution as "the other side" and never addressed the judges as "your honor". Karadzic's attitude towards the Tribunal is completely different. Karadzic addresses the Judges as "your excellencies," and at the end of one pre-trial hearing he engaged in friendly conversation with Judge Bonomy about his patron saint.
Milosevic insisted on examining each and every witness against him, but Karadzic has agreed that the testimony of certain prosecution witnesses can be admitted in written form without the witness having to come to the court and give live testimony.
Karadzic's Demand for More Time is Reasonable
Karadzic has been roundly condemned in the media for seeking an additional nine months to prepare his defense. Certain pundits have accused him of "making a mockery of justice" and "obstructing the trial" because he refuses to participate in the trial until he is given proper time to prepare his defense. They say "he's had fourteen years to prepare a defense," therefore no additional time is needed.
In reality, Karadzic hasn't had fourteen years. The accusations against him keep changing. The Prosecution has charged Karadzic with a litany of specific crimes in specific towns and villages throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina. Obviously he has known for some time that he is accused of major crimes in Sarajevo and Srebrenica, but the indictment also accuses him of numerous crimes in several other towns and villages -- and those crimes have been in question.
The Prosecution amended the indictment against him for the third time on February 27, 2009 and even then Karadzic didn't know which crimes in which towns and villages he would ultimately be charged with until the 19th of October when the prosecution filed a "marked-up" version of the indictment. Then, literally one week later, on the 26th of October the Tribunal started the trial against him.
The trial is delayed because the Prosecution waited until one week before the trial started to decide which crimes they were ultimately going to charge the Defendant with. To accuse Karadzic of obstructing the trial because he needs more than a week to get ready is disingenuous and malicious.
Even if he were guilty, Karadzic wouldn't be "cheating justice" by delaying the start of the trial. If he gets the nine months of preparation time that he's asking for, he'll get to spend all nine of those months in prison. He wouldn't be getting away with anything.
It's the Prosecution that's "had fourteen years to get ready" there's no excuse for them not having had their indictment ready to go as soon as Karadzic was taken into custody last year.
The Prosecution is incredibly hypocritical. When they needed time to prepare the Aleksovski case they argued that it wouldn't be unreasonable to keep a Defendant waiting in prison for five years before they started the trial. But when Karadzic asks for nine months to prepare a defense against an indictment that they only issued the week before, they accuse him of being obstructionist. And they use that accusation to argue that he should be barred from leading his own defense and that a lawyer, chosen by the Tribunal, should be imposed on him against his will to lead his defense instead.
Railroading the Defendant and Misrepresenting the Evidence
If Karadzic really were the genocidal madman that he's made out to be, the Tribunal wouldn't need to resort to this kind of chicanery to convict him. In fact, if he's guilty his alleged victims should be the most outraged by the Tribunal's conduct. If the Tribunal doesn't give him a fair trial, the credibility of any verdict convicting him will be severely undermined.
Unfortunately, speed appears to be the priority in this trial because the judges and the prosecutor all know that their job is to railroad and convict the Defendant. The less time the Defense has to prepare itself, the less able it will be to rebut the Prosecution's evidence or challenge the Prosecution's interpretation of the evidence.
During the Milosevic trial the Prosecution frequently misrepresented its evidence, and judging by their opening statement, the Prosecution intends to do the same thing in this trial.
An excellent example of this malicious type of prosecution comes in the form of an intercepted telephone conversation that the Prosecution quoted from in their opening statement where Karadzic said, "There are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo ... it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die. They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the earth." In its reporting, the London Times said the recordings were "a clear indicator of genocidal intent they leave no room for doubt" and that was how Prosecution sought to portray the evidence in court.
However, if you look at Karadzic's remarks in their proper context, things look radically different than the way they were presented by the Prosecution and the media. I happen to have the transcript of that telephone conversation, from when it was admitted as evidence in Milosevic's trial, and what Karadzic said was: "They [the Bosnian-Muslims] are preparing for war ... they will try to wage war here [in Sarajevo] ... they're totally crazy ... they will disappear, that people will disappear from the face of the earth if they start [a war] now ... they have to know that there are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo, that's insane, they will disappear, Sarajevo will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die, they're not right in the head."
Karadzic didn't say he wanted to kill the Muslims in Sarajevo. He said that if the Muslims were crazy enough to start a war in Sarajevo that a lot of them would die. There is a world of difference between what he really said, and what the Prosecution and the media have tried to make it look like he said.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if he were truly guilty the Prosecution wouldn't have to lie about their evidence in order to convict him. No rational person could interpret the things Karadzic said on that tape as an expression of genocidal intent, but that's how things were represented in court by the Prosecutor and how it was subsequently reported by the press.
These people know they're lying; Karadzic is on that tape expressing sympathy for the Muslim population saying, "they don't understand that they'd be up to their necks in blood and that the Muslim people would disappear, the poor Muslims would disappear who don't know where he [the Bosnian-Muslim leader, Alija Izetbegovic] is taking them, where he is taking the Muslims."
Karadzic makes it clear that his grievance is with the political leaders of the Bosnian-Muslims, not with the Muslim people themselves. How's this for genocidal intent? He says: "There are ordinary [Muslim] people out there, and I think they should be welcomed with open arms. But the leadership, there will be no hesitation, they must know that, that if they want to secede [from Yugoslavia] they will have to start a war against us and to hit us, to fight us, and then they will get our response."
Karadzic didn't say any of that for the benefit of public consumption. He said all of this in a private telephone conversation that had been tapped and recorded without his knowledge. He wasn't even talking to anybody important, he was talking to a personal friend, a poet named Gojko Djoko, who called him one night while he was at home watching movies with his wife.
Even though the tape isn't incriminating, if this were an American court the tape wouldn't be admissible at all because nobody knows whose custody it was in during the war, and whether it could have been doctored in the years before it was turned-over to the Tribunal. But, then again, the Tribunal doesn't have as high of evidential standards as we're accustomed to in America.
Conclusion
The Tribunal's willingness to admit questionable evidence and the Prosecution's propensity to lie about the evidence highlight Karadzic's need to prepare a robust defense.
If the Tribunal imposes a lawyer on him against his will, it won't be because he was being unreasonable and trying to obstruct the trial -- although that's certainly how they'll try to spin it. The preparation period that he's asking for is more than reasonable in light of the fact that the indictment was finalized just seven days before the trial was scheduled to start.
If the Tribunal imposes a lawyer on Radovan Karadzic against his will, it will be because they don't want him to present a defense that would rebut the accusations against him and the Serbian people. It will be because they've already written the verdict convicting him and they don't want him screwing it up by presenting evidence to the contrary or exposing the fallacy of their reasoning. They want a defense lawyer who will play along while they railroad the defendant -- welcome to "international justice" in the new world order.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 27 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Andy Wilcoxson only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Andy Wilcoxson is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Bravo Alex for presenting an alternative view on the Karadzic trial at the Hague. "Innocent until proven guilty" or "trial by media", I believe the latter applies in this trail. The outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Good comments. Inequality of arms is a major violation of international law and that is what is happening here.
I can tell you that one of the lawyers on the Karadzic prosecution team was just a rabid anti-Serb, and when I saw him a few times up in the Hague ( I was based in Belgrade) he would always ask when I was going to leave the "den of evil" and that since I was in Belgrade a good length of time, I was obviously a "chetnik" myself for not asking for a transfer. So, it gives you an idea of that mindset. Another time, when I was posted at the OTP office in Kosovo, I recall when some of the lawyers and investigators were reviewing a tape in which the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) had made of an incident where they "executed" a Serb soldier- and the group of United Nations lawyers and investigators- " cheered " upon seeing the execution of the Serb soldier. Again, gives you an idea of what many of those "objective" investigators really thought.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-04 14:33:25
James, You definitely need to write a book. People need to know what's going on at this Tribunal. The Serbs certainly believe that the Tribunal has an anti-Serb bias, and what you're saying would seem to confirm that.
It seems to me that the whole concept of international justice faces an intractable problem. Namely that the individuals who would administer it have their national interests. Everybody is the citizen of some country or another, and everybody lives in one country or another. When you add in to the mix that intelligence officers conceal their true identity (with the full complicity of their national government) how can anybody ensure that they aren't sent to by their respective governments to infiltrate and manipulate international courts as they have done with the ICTY?
Thankfully, the ICTY's jurisdiction is limited to the former Yugoslavia, but there's no reason why the ICC can't be infiltrated, compromised, and manipulated the same way the ICTY has been.
Sam,
When you say the verdict is a foregone conclusion, you don't know how right you are. If you look at their verdict from the Krajisnik trial (and many other trials of Bosnian-Serb officials) you will see that the Tribunal has made judicial findings of fact about Radovan Karadzic criminal liability already and that these "adjudicated facts" figure prominantly in the convictions of many other Bosnian-Serb officials.
The Tribunal has already ruled that Karadzic was the leader and the mastermind of a "joint criminal enterprise (JCE)" to ethnically cleanse Bosnia. They convicted Krajisnik, the speaker of the Bosnian-Serb parliament (who didn't have a single soldier or policeman under his command), on the basis that he participated in "Karadzic's JCE". They sentenced him to 27 years in prison (a life sentence for a man his age). If Karadzic were to be acquitted, that would seriously undermine the conviction of every other Bosnian-Serb the Tribunal sentenced on the basis of JCE liability. That would be a huge blow to the Tribunal's credibility, not to mention a huge legal mess that would undermine the Tribunal's past verdicts and give those defendants huge grounds to appeal their conviction. Do you honestly think they want to down a verdict in the Karadzic trial that would overturn so many verdicts from previous trials? Obviously they're under immense pressure not to do that. I don't think its a coincidence that the presiding judge in the Karadzic case (Judge Kwon) was just eleted vice-president of the Tribunal.
I think the rabid anti-Serb Lawyer should be named and shamed.
Andy,
Have you considered presenting your point of view at the Hague or would that be inappropriate? We should not have to put up with a "Kangaroo court" at the Hague - it sets a bad precedent. It's no surprise that so many countries are critical of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and have not ratified the Rome Statute.
"All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures" (Julius Caesar)
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-04 17:44:00
Sam, I have presented my views in The Hague. I was there in the summer of 2005 speaking at a rally outside the Scheveningen prison where the UN Detention Unit is housed (this is where they're keeping Karadzic locked-up). An interesting historical tid-bit is the fact that this same prison was used by the Nazis to imprison Dutch resistance fighters during the Second World War. It's kind of a sad irony that people are being held in that same prison today and they're being railroaded by a kangaroo court. One of the Dutch resistance fighters who was imprisoned there by the Nazis wrote on prison wall "In this prison there are no criminals, but only the glory of Holland".
Your article, Railroading Radovan Karadzic, is a breadth of freesh air! You hit the nail on the head! It\'s very hard to find someone these days who is honest and has enough courage to stand up and tell the truth. The corrupted news media and the politicians should be ashamed for their lies, fabrications, and one-sided reporting they did during the nineties and are still doing it today.
I would like to add and emphasize the fact that Bill Clinton with his administration and the NATO, especially his Secretary of State, should be on trial at the Hague for those atrocities they are arcusing Mr. Karadzic. Mr. Karadzic was working hard to avoid the war. Mr. Clinton and his administration, together with Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims, fabricated stories and made the Serbian leaders and the Serbian people appear guilty so that they can proceed to destroy Serian lives.
Serbian people have lived in Bosnia and Kosovo (their Jerusalem) for centuries. If they studied history they would have known this.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-06 17:55:41
Andy Wilcoxson, with all due respect, but you don't have any credibility. You admitted yourself that you are genocide denier. Apparently, you are proud of it. All your distortions with respect to Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic are obvious to everyone with an academic background - which you do not have.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-06 17:57:15
Karadzic - in his own words
On the eve of the war, Karadzic said that Muslims would ‘disappear from the face of the earth’, that Sarajevo will become ‘a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die’, that he, Karadzic, would tell ‘Europe to go fuck off and stay away until we have finished the job’. According to the prosecution, those quotes clearly indicate the mens rea of the accused and his intent in the war.
"For the benefit of our people we will do anything we have to do, without mercy."
"They have to know that there are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo . . . it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die."
"They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the Earth."
"I think it is clear to the army and clear to everyone. It will be a real bloodbath."
"Europe will be told to go f*** itself and not to come back until the job is finished."
"No Muslim foundations shall ever be laid in Serb areas and Serbian villages... All foundations that are laid will be blown up. You must not sell land to the Muslims . . . this is a fight to the finish. It is a battle for living space."
On 13 October 1991, Karadzic, talking to Momcilo Mandic, said: "Within a few days there will be no Sarajevo, and there will be over 500,000 dead; within a month the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina will be destroyed!"
Again, on 15 October 1991, Karadzic foresees the extermination of the Muslims in the event of war. Talking to Miodrag Davidovic and his own brother Luka, Karadzic said: "In the first instance, none of their leaders will remain alive, they will be killed within 3 or 4 hours. They will have no chance of surviving."
Miroslav Deronjic, a former Bosnian Serb politician who has pleaded guilty to war crimes, said he met Radovan Karadzic in early July 1995, shortly before Serbs attacked the United Nations-declared ''safe area'' of Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia.''At one moment, he said the following sentence to me, "Miroslav, all of them need to be killed -- whatever you can lay your hands on, '' Mr.Deronjic told a pre-appeal hearing for a former Bosnian Serb general, Radislav Krstic.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-06 21:16:12
Yes Branko, I'm a Srebrenica genocide denier and I'm not just "apparently proud of it" I am proud of it. It's a stupid allegation on its face.
If the Serbs committed genocide in Srebrenica they would have killed the women and children. If you're trying to exterminate an ethnic group what sense does it make to focus your killing on military aged men and to spare the women and children? If your goal is to exterminate an ethnic group, which is what genocide is, the women and children are the first people you'd want to kill. Women give birth and children grow-up, if you don't kill them you won't have a very effective genocide.
The fact that the "victims" from Srebrenica are overwhealmingly military aged men tells me that the Serbs weren't engaged in genocide. It tells me they were fighting a war -- a war that, by the way, the Muslims started.
The Srebrenica-Muslims aren't some kind of innocent victims. Video evidence of their handiwork from 1992 can be seen here and here. They committed horrible massacres against the Serbs.
During the trial of Slobodan Milosevic the former UN Protection Force commander in Bosnia, General Philippe Morillon, described Srebrenica as a "hellish circle of revenge." He said the Bosnian-Muslims "engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region."
The presiding trial judge asked Morillon point-blank: "Are you saying, then, General, that what happened in 1995 was a direct reaction to what Naser Oric [the Bosnian-Muslim military commander in Srebrenica] did to the Serbs two years before?" Morillon responded, "Yes. Yes, Your Honour. I am convinced of that."
The Muslims used the so-called "UN safe haven" of Srebrenica as a military base to attack the Serbs from. The entire 28th infantry division of the ABiH was based there. The Serbs had good cause to attack Srebrenica and take it over.
I don't have any trouble believing that the Serbs massacred a lot of Muslim soldiers (and probably executed quite a few) when they took-over Srebrenica, I'm sure they killed more of them than they really had to, but that's not the same thing as genocide.
The people who call Srebrenica a "genocide" are the ones who are distorting things.
You obviously didn't even read the article that your commenting on because I show the context where Karadzic said Sarajevo would be a "black cauldron". I have the link to the whole transcript He said that IF THE MUSLIMS WERE CRAZY ENOUGH TO START A WAR IN SARAJEVO that a lot of them would die.
As for Karadzic's comments about blowing-up foundations and not selling land to Muslims, he wasn't talking about indiginous Bosnian-Muslims. He was talking about Izetbegovic's plans to bring in foreign Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and re-settle them in Serbian villages as a means of changing the ethnic balance. Karadzic was saying that foreign Muslims wouldn't be allowed to move in.
Miroslav Deronjic didn't have a single soldier or policeman under his command in 1995. Why would Karadzic tell him to kill people when he wasn't in a position to do that? Could it be that Deronjic made that up as part of his plea bargain with the prosecution?
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-06 21:58:00
Dear Andy Wilcoxson, I value your honesty, but you're wrong. Here is the article I wrote earlier this year:
Between 1992 and 1995, militarized Serb villages around Srebrenica had been used to attack and destroy nearby Bosniak villages around Srebrenica, as well as to launch brutal attacks on Srebrenica. Serb village of Kravica had a large cache of weapons and was used to stage attacks on Srebrenica and nearby Bosniak villages. Furthermore, Serbs used their villages around Srebrenica to block humanitarian aid coming into the Bosniak enclave, which caused Bosniaks to start dying from starvation and engage in counter-attacks for the purpose of obtaining food and demilitarizing heavily armed Serbs around Srebrenica.
The Trial Judgment of Naser Oric makes it clear that Serb villages around Srebrenica were heavily militarized bases from which Serbs launched brutal attacks on Bosnian Muslim villages, as well as on the town of Srebrenica itself. As stated in the Judgment, quote:
"Between April 1992 and March 1993, Srebrenica town and the villages in the area held by Bosnian Muslims were constantly subjected to Serb military assaults, including artillery attacks, sniper fire, as well as occasional bombing from aircrafts. Each onslaught followed a similar pattern. Serb soldiers and paramilitaries surrounded a Bosnian Muslim village or hamlet, called upon the population to surrender their weapons, and then began with indiscriminate shelling and shooting. In most cases, they then entered the village or hamlet, expelled or killed the population, who offered no significant resistance, and destroyed their homes. During this period, Srebrenica was subjected to indiscriminate shelling from all directions on a daily basis. Potočari in particular was a daily target for Serb artillery and infantry because it was a sensitive point in the defence line around Srebrenica. Other Bosnian Muslim settlements were routinely attacked as well. All this resulted in a great number of refugees and casualties."
According to the Judgment, the Bosnian Muslim villages around Srebrenica were totally unprepared for war:
"In comparison, it appears that the Bosnian Muslim side did not adequately prepare for the looming armed conflict. There were not even firearms to be found in the BosnianMuslim villages, apart from some privately owned pistols and hunting rifles; a few light weaponswere kept at the Srebrenica police station."
The Judgment makes it clear that Serb village of Kravica was a military base from which Serbs launched deadly attacks on neighbouring Bosnian Muslim villages and town of Srebrenica itself. The Bosniak counter-attack on Kravica on the 7 January 1993 followed as a result of Serb blockade of humanitarian aid and constant attacks on nearby Bosnian Muslim villages. According to the Judgment:
"The fighting intensified in December 1992 and the beginning of January 1993, when Bosnian Muslims were attacked by Bosnian Serbs primarily from the direction of Kravica and Ježestica. In the early morning of the 7 January 1993, Orthodox Christmas day, Bosnian Muslims attacked Kravica, Ježestica and Šiljkovići. Convincing evidence suggests that the village guards were backed by the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army], and following the fighting in the summer of 1992, they received military support, including weapons and training. A considerable amount of weapons and ammunition was kept in Kravica and Šiljkovići. Moreover, there is evidence that besides the village guards, there was Serb and Bosnian Serb military presence in the area. The Trial Chamber is not satisfied that it can be attributed solely to Bosnian Muslims. The evidence is unclear as to the number of houses destroyed by Bosnian Muslims as opposed to those destroyed by Bosnian Serbs. In light of this uncertainty, the Trial Chamber concludes that the destruction of property in Kravica between 7 and 8 December 1992 does not fulfil the elements of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages not justified by military necessity."
The Judgment also confirms that Bosniak refugees in the besieged enclave started dying from starvation caused by the Serb blockade of humanitarian aid. As a result, Bosniaks had to counter-attack Serb military bases around Srebrenica to obtain much needed food and other necessities for the survival:
"Between June 1992 and March 1993, Bosnian Muslims raided a number of vllages and hamlets inhabited by Bosnian Serbs, or from which Bosnian Muslims had formerly been expelled. One of the purposes of these actions was to acquire food, weapons, ammunition and military equipment. Bosnian Serb forces controlling the access roads were not allowing international humanitarian aid – most importantly, food and medicine – to reach Srebrenica. As a consequence, there was a constant and serious shortage of food causing starvation to peak in the winter of 1992/1993. Numerous people died or were in an extremely emaciated state due to malnutrition."
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-06 21:59:44
When it comes to women, here is a detailed answer to this question directly from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor vs. Radislav Krstic):
31. As the Trial Chamber explained, forcible transfer could be an additional means by which to ensure the physical destruction of the Bosnian Muslim community in Srebrenica. The transfer completed the removal of all Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica, thereby eliminating even the residual possibility that the Muslim community in the area could reconstitute itself. The decision not to kill the women or children may be explained by the Bosnian Serbs’ sensitivity to public opinion. In contrast to the killing of the captured military men, such an action could not easily be kept secret, or disguised as a military operation, and so carried an increased risk of attracting international censure.
32. In determining that genocide occurred at Srebrenica, the cardinal question is whether the intent to commit genocide existed. While this intent must be supported by the factual matrix, the offence of genocide does not require proof that the perpetrator chose the most efficient method to accomplish his objective of destroying the targeted part. Even where the method selected will not implement the perpetrator’s intent to the fullest, leaving that destruction incomplete, this ineffectiveness alone does not preclude a finding of genocidal intent. The international attention focused on Srebrenica, combined with the presence of the UN troops in the area, prevented those members of the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army] Main Staff who devised the genocidal plan from putting it into action in the most direct and efficient way. Constrained by the circumstances, they adopted the method which would allow them to implement the genocidal design while minimizing the risk of retribution.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-06 22:02:42
Sorry for making my response to you so long. This is my 3 comment as a response to you.
Three years before the genocide, Serbs burned more than 400 Bosnian Muslim villages in Podrinje/around Srebrenica and slaughtered thosuands of Bosnian Muslim women and children.
See photos of Muslim children slaughtered by Serbs around Srebrenica:
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-06 22:04:49
LITTLE KNOWN FACT: Did you know? The Serbs never demilitarized around Srebrenica. The Bosnian Government had entered into demilitarization agreements with the Bosnian Serbs. On 21 April 1993, the UNPROFOR issued press release saying that the process of demilitarization of Bosnian defenders of Srebrenica had been a success. According to the Agreement, the Serbs should withdraw their heavy weapons before the Bosniaks gave up their weapons. The Serbs refused to demilitarize. They never honored their part of agreement. Instead, Serb military and paramilitary troops continued using surrounding Serb villages as a base for attacks on (and brutal siege of) Srebrenica.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-07 11:42:57
Branko, Genocide is the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
When we're talking about "genocide" in Srebrenica it is important to understand that the Hague Tribunal is using a different definition than the rest of us. I am a "Srebrenica genocide denier", because I reject the Tribunal's unique definition of the word "genocide".
According to the appeals judgment in the Krstic case, "the existence of a plan or policy is not a legal ingredient of the crime of genocide." The Tribunal found that "the record contains no statements by members of the VRS Main Staff indicating that the killing of the Bosnian Muslim men was motivated by genocidal intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica."
In order to find that "genocide" had happened in Srebrenica, the judgement says: "The Trial Chamber treated the killing of the men of military age as evidence from which to infer that Radislav Krstic and some members of the VRS Main Staff had the requisite intent to destroy all the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica."
The Tribunal uses such an excessively broad definition of the word "genocide" that it could be applied to any military conflict. Anyone can infer anything they like. For example, I treat the killing of military aged men as evidence from which to infer that a war was going on.
The Tribunal ruled that soldiers killed in combat can be counted as victims of genocide. Their judgement says "the perpetrator’s genocidal intent will almost invariably encompass civilians, but that is not a legal requirement of the offence of genocide" and that "a percentage of the bodies in the gravesites examined may have been of men killed in combat."
The intellectual gymnastics they had to perform to arrive at a finding of "genocide" in Srebrenica is insane. In the absense of a clear genocidal plan they based their finding of genocide on an inference they drew from the killing of military aged men in a war. And to explain why the so-called "genocide" spared the women and children, the Tribunal waters down the meaning of the word genocide even more in the passage you quoted by ruling that "the offence of genocide does not require proof that the perpetrator chose the most efficient method to accomplish his objective of destroying the targeted part. Even where the method selected will not implement the perpetrator’s intent to the fullest, leaving that destruction incomplete, this ineffectiveness alone does not preclude a finding of genocidal intent."
When you call me a "Srebrenica Genocide Denier" I'm sure you're doing it to attack my credibility, but I honestly think it's a label that enhances my credibility. It means I'm not dumb enough to swallow the rediculous definition of "genocide" that the Tribunal is trying to foist off on everybody here.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-07 13:33:14
Andy, thank you for your response.
1. You misunderstood the Krstic judgment. You quoted that the judgment ruled the following: "the existence of a plan or policy is not a legal ingredient of the crime of genocide." You misquoted the judgment. That is not what the judges ruled, that is what Krstic defence claimed. Here is exactly what the judges ruled, quote:
"The Appeals Chamber, in a recent decision, indicated that the existence of a plan was not a legal ingredient of the crime of genocide but could be of evidential assistance to prove the intent of the authors of the criminal act(s). Evidence presented in this case has shown that the killings were planned: the number and nature of the forces involved, the standardised coded language used by the units in communicating information about the killings, the scale of the executions, the invariability of the killing methods applied, indicate that a decision was made to kill all the Bosnian Muslim military aged men."
2. You claimed that "the Tribunal found that 'the record contains no statements by members of the VRS Main Staff indicating that the killing of the Bosnian Muslim men was motivated by genocidal intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica.'"
Again, you misquoted/misunderstood the rulling. The Supreme commander of the Bosnian Serb Army did have a knowledge of the massacre. In March 1995, Radovan Karadzic issued "Directive 7" instructing the Bosnian Serb Army to exterminate Bosnian Muslims trapped in Srebrenica:
"Complete the physical separation of Srebrenica from Zepa as soon as possible, preventing even communication between individuals in the two enclaves. By planned and well-thought out combat operations, create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica."
To better understand the Krstic judgment, please read this article: "Multitude of Evidence" published by the ICTY outreach programme, read it here and you will understand the judgment fully:
3. You claimed on numerous occassions that genocide occured because Bosniaks attacked Serb villages, but you never mentioned that in 1992 (3 years before the genocide) Serbs burned 400 Bosnian Muslim villages around Srebrenica (Podrinje region) and killed thousands of Bosniak civilians around Srebrenica. Please read my previous comments and please watch these photos of Bosnian Muslim civilians murdered by Serbs around Srebrenica in 1992, [link edited for length]
4. Demilitarization agreement. This part you don't understand at all. The Serbs never demilitarized around Srebrenica. The Bosnian Government had entered into demilitarization agreements with the Bosnian Serbs. On 21 April 1993, the UNPROFOR issued press release saying that the process of demilitarization of Bosnian defenders of Srebrenica had been a success. According to the Agreement, the Serbs should withdraw their heavy weapons before the Bosniaks gave up their weapons. The Serbs refused to demilitarize. They never honored their part of agreement. Instead, Serb military and paramilitary troops continued using surrounding Serb villages as a base for attacks on (and brutal siege of) Srebrenica.
- I do, however, respect your honesty and politeness in your response.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-07 13:56:05
Just a clarification for the Point #1 I made in above comments. You need to read more than half the sentence in the Appeal's judgment ruling. The appelate chamber specifically ruled the following (full sentence): "Article 4 of the Statute does not require that the genocidal acts be premeditated over a long period.... The Appeals Chamber, in a recent decision, indicated that the existence of a plan was not a legal ingredient of the crime of genocide but could be of evidential assistance to prove the intent of the authors of the criminal act(s). Evidence presented in this case has shown that the killings were planned..."
The full sentence is what the judges ruled, not half-sentence. You should re-read the judgment slowly and put everything into the context.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-07 14:00:49
Andy, one more thing (this is my 3rd comment, see previous ones above):
Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35: The Fall of Srebrenica
B. Role of Bosniak forces on the ground
479. A third accusation leveled at the Bosniak defenders of Srebrenica is that they provoked the Serb offensive by attacking out of that safe area. Even though this accusation is often repeated by international sources, there is no credible evidence to support it. Dutchbat personnel on the ground at the time assessed that the few “raids” the Bosniaks mounted out of Srebrenica were of little or no military significance. These raids were often organized in order to gather food, as the Serbs had refused access for humanitarian convoys into the enclave. Even Serb sources approached in the context of this report acknowledged that the Bosniak forces in Srebrenica posed no significant military threat to them. The biggest attack the Bosniaks launched out of Srebrenica during the more than two years which is was designated a safe area appears to have been the raid on the village of Visnjica, on 26 June 1995, in which several houses were burned, up to four Serbs were killed and approximately 100 sheep were stolen. In contrast, the Serbs overran the enclave two weeks later, driving tens of thousands from their homes, and summarily executing thousands of men and boys. The Serbs repeatedly exaggerated the extent of the raids out of Srebrenica as a pretext for the prosecution of a central war aim: to create geographically contiguous and ethnically pure territory along the Drina, while freeing their troops to fight in other parts of the country. The extent to which this pretext was accepted at face value by international actors and observers reflected the prism of “moral equivalency” through which the conflict in Bosnia was viewed by too many for too long.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-07 14:56:07
One more thing. It really doesn't matter who did what to who during the war in Bosnia. Even if everything you said were true, what difference does it make?
I can give you a whole laundry list of Serbs who were victims at the hands of Muslims, undefended Serbian villages that were attacked by the Muslims. I can show you pictures of Islamic holy warriors posing with severed Serbian heads in Bosnia, I can show you pictures of maimed and dismembered Serbian civilians. You can do exactly the opposite, you can show me Muslims who suffered at the hands of Serbs. I have no doubt that you can enumerate a whole host on incidents where Muslims were victimized, and I can give you many incidents of Serbs being victimized.
All we would prove is that the war was barbaric. Proving that war is barbaric is like proving that water is wet or that fire is hot. The whole point of any war is to inflict so much death and destruction on your enemy that they capitulate.
At the end of this all, the only discussion that matters is who was responsible for the war and which side's war aims were more legitimate.
In Bosnia, it is indisputably Alija Izetbegovic and the Muslims that started the war. They deserve the most blame for the horrific consequences that flowed from that decision. The Serbs wanted to keep Yugoslavia intact. They were happy with things the way they were. They weren't the ones who wanted to break-up Yugoslavia.
Bosnia's secession from Yugoslavia was illegal on every level. 1) The referendum on secession was illegal because the decision to have the vote in the first place was passed in the parliament in the absense of the Serbian MPs, in the dead of the night, after the parliament had been adjourned for the night by the speaker. 2) The referendum didn't get the 2/3rds support required by the 62nd Amendment of the Bosnian Constitution to pass. 3) The referendum violated Article 5 of the Yugoslav Constitution because Bosnia's secession wasn't negotiated with the other Yugoslav republics.
The Muslims were setting up paramilitary groups long before the war started. The first unit of the Patriotic League was established in Foca on August 1, 1990 -- clearly their intention was to wage war in order to secure Bosnia's secession from Yugoslavia by force, otherwise why would they be setting-up paramilitary groups two years before the war even started?
The leader of the Bosnian-Muslims, Alija Izetbegovic, was an Islamic fundamentalist. In 1990 he published his book the "Islamic Declaration" in Sarajevo. In that book he wrote that his "incontrovertible and invincible aim" was the establishment of an "Islamic order". In Izetbegovic’s view "the Islamic movement should and can, take over political power as soon as it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only overturn the existing non-Islamic power, but also build up a new Islamic one". He branded Western feminists "a depraved element of the female sex" and said, "There can be neither peace nor coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions."
Given Izetbegovic's views, the Bosnian-Serbs were faced with two choices. They could be subjugated by the Muslims in the unitary Bosnian state that Izetbegovic wanted to lead, or they could separate themselves from the Muslims. They chose to separate themselves from the Muslims, and who can blame them?
Sure, Izetbegovic told a bunch of gullible Western reporters, who never bothered to venture beyond the confines of the Sarajevo Holiday Inn, that he wanted a multi-ethnic Bosnian state -- all while he was bringing in foreign mujahadeen from the middle east, which included such democracy-loving people as Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and four of the 9/11 hijackers. He received 2/3rds of his military hardware from the Iran, the world's #1 sponsor of state terrorism. If he wanted a multi-ethnic and democratic state those people wouldn't have supported him, and secondly Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic state if he wanted ethnic diversity he could have stayed in Yugoslavia.
Izetbegovic had every chance in the world to make peace with the Serbs, and he blew them all. He was even offered the presidency of Yugoslavia by the Belgrade Initative. The Serbs bent-over backwards to try and make peace with him, they agreed to the Lisbon Agreement before the war ever started -- and for that matter so did Izetbegovic -- but then he backed-out of it and opted for war anyway.
The worst part of this all is that Izetbegovic stole the 1990 elections from Fikret Abdic. Abdic got the most votes, and I'm convinced that if Fikret Abdic had been the president instead of Izetbegovic that there wouldn't have been a war in Bosnia at all. Abdic wasn't a fundamentalist -- in fact Abdic (a half-Muslim half-Croat who led a large faction of Muslims in Western Bosnia) even formed a military alliance with Karadzic and the Serbs against Izetbegovic.
Izetbegovic deliberately subjected his civilian population to enemy attack. His forces did things like fire on the Serbs from the Kosevo Hospital in Sarajevo, in order to provoke Serbian shelling against the hospital. Some of the sniper attacks in Sarajevo were Muslims shooting their own civilians. The goal of these self-inflicted atrocities was to provoke foreign intervention against the Serbs by portraying them as blood-thirsty monsters in the media. If the Serbs were so awful, why did the Muslims have to stage atrocities against their own people?
The Muslims never missed an oppourtunity to exaggerate their suffering either, but slowly the truth has been coming out. First they said the toll of the Bosnian war was over 300,000, then for a long time it was 250,000, a few years later it was down to 102,000 and now it's standing at something like 94,000 -- and a third of the victims are Serbs.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that it strains credulity for the Muslims to point the finger at Karadzic, when they're the ones who started the war in the first place. They're the victims of their own billigerance. The only "justice" they deserve is to live with the consequences of their actions -- and if they want to hold somebody accountable for the Hell they were subjected to in the war they can start with their own leaders.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-07 16:37:02
Branko,
Three things about Directive 7. 1) It wasn't an order, it was an informational document dealing with political and military strategy. 2) The order that was ultimately issued to the main staff of the VRS on the 9th of July 1995 said, "In accordance with the order of the President of Republika Srpska [Radovan Karadzic], you must issue an order to all combat units participating in combat operations around Srebrenica to offer maximum protection and safety to all UNPROFOR members and the civilian Muslim population. You must order subordinate units to refrain from destroying civilian targets unless forced to do so because of strong enemy resistance. Ban the torching of residential buildings and treat the civilian population and war prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949." and 3) Where directive 7 says the Drina Corps will be tasked with "creating an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival for the inhabitants of Srebrenica" this is obviously a nod to ethnic cleansing, but it's not the same as saying to kill everybody. There's a difference between making people miserable so they'll leave a particular territory and in exterminating their ethnic group.
Hitler wasn't trying to get the Jews to go live someplace else, he was trying to kill them all -- that's genocide. This is ethnic cleansing, and all three sides in the Bosnian war did it. 170,000 Bosnian-Serb refugees were driven from their homes. 31% of the civilians and 21% of the soldiers who died in that war were Serbs.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-07 18:47:07
When it comes to the break up of Yugoslavia and the independence of Bosnia, Serbian leadership indeed made some cardinal mistakes. Only 60% of Bosniaks and Croats voted for the independence. Serbs made a bad choice and boycotted the referendum; had they voted against the independence, then results would be different.
The ugly truth that Serbia practically controlled the Yugoslavia; other constitutive Republics did not like it. SFRJ Republics (Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, etc) wanted to be "equals" in the federation, but Serbia wanted the full control. Sure, the capital of Yugoslavia was Belgrade, but that did not mean that Serbia somehow had the licence to run the country alone. Other Republics felt that Serbia was violating the SFRJ constitution, so they threatened to separate, and we all know how it ended.
With respect to the Bosnian war, yes, mujahadeens came to Bosnia - but they came uninvited and they represented 0to.1% 0.3% of the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) "defence" force. Remember, Army of RBiH had about 200,000 (poorly armed) infrantry men and women.
I don't like Alija Izetbegovic, but the fact is that he indeed was a moderate Muslim, but also a very incompetent politician. You need to read the "Islamic Declaration" and you will see that Bosnia is not mentioned in it. More than any other text, the Islamic Declaration is cited by Serbian nationalist propaganda as evidence of dangerous 'Islamic fundamentalism' in Europe which must be suppressed... or else. Often cited to justify persecution of the Bosnian Muslim civilian population during the former war, the Declaration and its author Alija Izetbegovic have been demonized and frequently blamed for the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. One might explain these accusations as viscous political propaganda brought on by war. However, as early as 1983, Izetbegovic and his writings were the target of a virulent campaign against Islam in Communist Yugoslavia. This campaign had its contemporary roots in the early 1970's when Bosniaks were allowed for the first time to declare themselves as a national group, but its deeper roots may lie in what Serbian scholar Bogdan Denitch calls "the pathological suspicion and hatred of Muslim Slavs."
Izetbegovic's book actually criticized Islamic governments. If you read the book (I read it), you will see that Serbian war crimes apologists took out of context Izetbegovic's words from Islamic Declaration, take as an example the following quote: "There can be no peace or co-existence between the Islamic Faith and non Islamic institutions". This is the truth, and he wrote this as a critique of Islamic governments's refusal to modernize and allow freedom for women and other faiths (he was refering to Pakistan). Part II of the Declaration, "The Islamic Order," explains how Muslim society should be reorganized based on Islamic principles. Parts of this section are often quoted out of context to prove that the Declaration advocates violence. It is crucial to note that Izetbegovic was speaking here of Islamic countries in which false modernist or conservative Islamic doctrines have been institutionalized in the political and social system. He was simply criticising Islamic governments and in many instances praised Western achievements and Christian achievements in arts and science. He was not speaking of Western countries or his native Bosnia-Herzegovina (Bosnia is not even mentioned in the book). A close reading of the Declaration reveals that Izetbegovic was advocating a cultural, not a political revolution, especially in countries (like Yugoslavia) where Muslims were a minority.
The ugly fact is that both Alija Izetbegovic and Slobodan Milosevic were, in fact, moderates.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-07 19:10:43
(I am glad we're having this discussion without insults.)
I just noticed your second comment. You said that "The first unit of the Patriotic League was established in Foca on August 1, 1990." Actually, the date quoted in the Bosnian media is December 19, 1990. They had hunting rifles. If you count that as a proper defence force, then good luck to you. I would not like to be in their shoes. However, I know that Serb villages in Podrinje area were used for covert military training and they were armed by the Yugoslav People's Army (that's what I know from Naser Oric's judgement). I may have to do a bit more investigation on that topic.
@ Directive 7 -- yes, you're correct. It was not an order, it was directive (instruction) how things should be done. I disagree with you that the Directive referred to ethnic cleansing. If you read the directive, it says: "create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica." It's obvious what he, Mr. Karadzic, meant by that.
@ The order of 9th of July 1995 was most likely: a) falsified by Serbian/Republika Srpska security agencies to defend Karadzic, OR b) it was cleverly planned by Radovan Karadzic for the purpose of his defence, so in case he ever needs to answer charges of genocide, he could use that piece of paper to defend himself. We know that this alleged order had no effect, whatsoever. I will send a letter to the prosecutor and ask him to do forensic investigation of that order, they should be able to forensically inspect paper/typing machines etc used to create that order... it's a piece of paper.
@ Adolf Hilter was responsible for committing the Holocaust. However, as judges noted, Hitler was not trying to kill all Jews and if you read Krstic appeal judgment, you would notice the term "Srebrenica Holocaust" in the Appeals Chamber's judgement and you would also notice that Krstic defence made a similar argument but the judges disagreed. Just search for the term "Hitler" you will find in the appelate decision. Judges explicitly disagreed with that statement.
@ Krajina Serbs (I was born in Krajina!) - Yes, more than 100,000 Serbs were driven from Krajina in Croatia and that was a war crime (unquestionably!), I agree with you there. It was a Serb territory in Croatia and they had no right to ethnically cleanse Serbs from their land. I agree with that 100%. But you also need to remember than in 1992, Serbs expelled 100,000 Bosnian Croats from Posavina (Northern Bosnia region, it stretches from Derventa to Brcko). Also, you can do your own research and see how many Croats got expelled from Serb Krajina in 1992, three years before the operation Storm.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-07 19:17:19
Andy, the reason I believe that Radovan Karadzic's The order of 9th of July 1995 was most likely falsified is because of previous falsified reports that Serb defence used in the court. Let me illustrate:
Original Report: "At around 8.30 hours, columns of [Bosniak] civilians and soldiers with pack animals were noticed from Udrc and Rasevo towards 13 Konjevic Polje. The columns were hit with every available means." - March 2nd, 1993.
Edited/Falsified Report: "At about 8.30 hours in the zone of responsibility of the Zvornik Brigade, a column of soldiers and pack animals was seen moving from Mount Urdc and Rasevo village in the direction of Konjevic Polje village. Fire was opened on the column." - March 2nd, 1993.
(Source: Popovic et al. trial transcripts with Prosecutor Peter McCloskey conducting cross-examination of a defence witness)
Lively debate ! As one who was "there" during the war, investigating human rights- as in - investigating "possible" substantial violation of human rights by the military, police and intelligence organs, I would say, as I was a, on the ground, in the field, practioner- of the laws of war- during the war, of which none of the ICTY presiding Judges were. In this case, I think the details of the village attacks, back and forth, Bosniak vs. Serb- is now irrelevant, it was a dirty war. UN Operation Posts cleary recorded attacks by both sides. However, as Andy says, it was a clear violation of established rules when the UN Protected Area did NOT disarm the Bosniak military. And, with the mention of Sarajevo- again, if you had lived in Sarajevo as myself- during that time, you would know that by the same token- Bosniak and official Bosnian forces were pummeling Serb enclaves in Sarajevo with mortar attacks non-stop. Attacks agains the Serb population within Sarajevo was hardly ever reported by the general media. So much so, that each time a new UN officer came to the field- I had to explain why the Serb parts of Sarajevo were in ruins- not because the Serbs were shelling themselves- but that a war within Sarajevo was taking place. So, this is NOT a legal Defense of the Serb shelling of Sarajevo- but rather, an exposure of the double standards applied- that the Bosnians are NOT being held accountable for non-stop attacks against the Serb civilian population inside Sarajevo. Remember, that doesn't come from the Wikipedia reports, the UN reports or CNN, it's what I witnessed and reported on myself. Yet, there was universal silence in the UN whenever we submitted such reports.
The crimes of Srebrenica indeed included- extra-judicial killings and ethnic cleansing by Serb forces. I agree with those charges and they were in my reports and for which I will later testify at Karadzic's hearing. However, I do not agree, and as someone who had real time experience- during that war, that Genocide was intended or committed. The problem with the charge of Genocide is its very definition has not been as yet clearly established. Definitions in the US legal community, the European Court of Human Rights, and other international instruments- do not agree on one consistent definition. Its relative lack of use over the past 50 years makes it a very new legal concept. The ICTY judges have 'chosen' to blend elements of ethnic cleansing into the definition of genocide to make the charge stick in the Krstic case. So, there is NOT any idea of a "clear cut" conviction to be made regarding genocide, Karadzic and Srebrenica. The genocide will be "interpreted" " BROADLY" to encompass ethnic cleansing elements to make the charge stick as I fully agree that by sparing most women and children- Srebrenica simply does not qualify for the generic idea and concept of what genocide is- the physical destruction of a peoples- in particular- the regenerative elements of that peoples- women and children. Women and children were not sparred by the Nazi's genocide, nor in Armenia, nor in Rwanda.
Andy, in my opinion, I observed myself- many statements from witnesses and informants re-written by some ICTY investigators, but I think not always directly to falsify- per se, but rather since they did not understand the local language, of which I speak fluently as Yugoslavia is my family background, the investigators- often became frustrated in using an interpreter and during read-backs to the witness- it would be a very brief summary- then the investigator would then "clean-up" the statement in English, often, substantively changing what witnesses really said to make the statement more substantial and in-line with the objectives of that investigator. In Belgrade, this happened quite often and the interpreters- who reported directly to me- often objected to me that the investigators were manipulating statements - or often "enhancing" statements by informers. Remember, many informers who were on our lists to be investigated- often got themselves OUT of being indicted by the Hague by offering "enhanced" statements to ICTY. That is a fact. But, that's life, such complex situations are bound to be flawed and this is just an illustration of that.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-08 10:25:01
Branko, You said "When it comes to the break up of Yugoslavia and the independence of Bosnia, Serbian leadership indeed made some cardinal mistakes. Only 60% of Bosniaks and Croats voted for the independence. Serbs made a bad choice and boycotted the referendum; had they voted against the independence, then results would be different."
The Serbs boycotted the referendum because it was illegal. The "memorandum on the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina," was passed by the Bosnian parliament in the absense of the Serbian deputies in the early hours of the morning on October 15, 1991. The speaker adjourned the parliament at 3:30 in the morning, the Serbs went home for the night, and the Croat and Muslim MPs unlawfully reconveined the parliament in the absense of the Serbs and passed the memorandum, which laid the foundation for the referendum that followed.
If the Serbs had participated they would have implicitly accepted the legality of the referendum. Voter turnout in the referendum was 64.31%. Of the ballots cast, 99.4% voted in favor of secession, 0.29% voted against, and 0.25% of ballots were invalid. The 62nd amendment of Bosnia's constitution dealt with the republic's territorial status. It held that changes to Bosnia’s territorial status had to be passed by 2/3rds of all eligable voters in a referendum. The Bosnian referendum on secession didn't get 2/3rds voter turnout so it didn't satisfy the criteria of Bosnia's own constitution.
Even if the referendum had been legal and constitutionaly valid in Bosnia, which it wasn't, article 5 of the SFRY constitution said, "The territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a single unified whole and consists of the territories of the Socialist Republics. The territory of a Republic may not be altered without the consent of that Republic, nor the territory of an Autonomous Province without the consent of that Autonomous Province. The territory of the Socialist Federal Republic may not be altered without the consent of all Socialist Republics and Autonomous Provinces. Boundaries between the Republics may only be altered on the basis of mutual agreement; and, if the boundary of an Autonomous Province is involved, on the basis of the latter’s agreement"
As part of the SFRY, Bosnia could not legally secede from the country without the consent of all the other republics, including Serbia. Izetbegovic never even attempted to get this consent, and neither did Tudjman or Kuchan or anybody else who started a war of secession.
The problem wasn't so much that the Muslims and the Croats wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. The problem was that they wanted to force unwilling Serbian populations living in Croatia and Bosnia to secede from Yugoslavia along with them, when the Serbs wanted to keep living in Yugoslavia. This is the sticking point.
You're also right that the Islamic Declaration isn't a book about Bosnia per-se. It's a book about Islam, and more importantly it's Alija Izetbegovic's vision of Islam. The full text is avaliable here: [link edited for length] and anybody following this discussion can read it.
A recurring theme in this book is that Islam isn't just a religion, that for Muslims, Islam forms the basis of society and the political system. I quoted excerpts that highlight this thesis in a stark way, but it's the overall theme of the book too. You have to understand that for people who aren't Muslims it dosen't look right for the President of a country with a substantial Muslim population to be publishing a book about Islam where he says his religion should be the basis of society and the foundation on which political systems should be based. Non-Muslims are going to react negatively to that.
The Mujahadeen were couldn't have been "uninvited". The "El Mujahid" were an official part of the ABiH's 7th brigade. They were officially part of Izetbegovic's military force. There is even film footage of him inspecting their unit. In 1994 Izetbegovic was physically seen in the company of Osama bin Laden by two western reporters: Eve-Ann Prentice of the London Times, and Renate Flottau of Der Spiegel.
I agree that Milosevic was a moderate, I don't think Izetbegovic was moderate, and for that matter I don't think Karadzic was moderate either. I think Karadzic and Izetbegovic were both extremists who fed off of eachother and radicalized their respective populations -- they both deserve blame for escilating the war -- although I blame Izetbegovic more than I blame Karadzic because Izetbegovic was the one who lit the fuse in the first place. I think that Fikret Abdic, the legitimate winner of the 1990 elections, would have been the best thing for Bosnia. If he was the president I don't think there ever would have been a war.
As for whether or not Karadzic's order was falsified, the Krstic judgement makes reference to the fact that orders were issued for the protection of the civilian population -- they don't find that this relieved him of responsibility -- but even they concede that the orders were issued. It is important to note that Directive 7 was issued in March of 1995, and Srebrenica wasn't attacked until mid-July so there were four months where things could have changed.
James, I generally agree with what you've said. I don't dispute that "The crimes of Srebrenica indeed included- extra-judicial killings and ethnic cleansing by Serb forces." What I disagree with is the Tribunal's classifcation of those crimes as "genocide". I also have some doubt as to the scale of crimes committed by the Serbian forces, Krstic's defense didn't dispute the scale of the killings, instead they argued that Krstic didn't have anything to do with them.
The Karadzic trial will be significant because he will be the first defendant, if he is allowed to, to dispute the scale of the killings. For the first time, the prosecution will have to prove its case that 8,000 Bosnian-Muslims were executed, and I don't think they'll be able to.
As for Sarajevo, I'm all for holding people accountable who terrorized that city, but I want everybody to be held accountable. It's not justice to put all the blame on the Serbs, when part of Izetbegovic's propaganda objective was to draw Serbian fire into civilian areas of the city.
I had the opportunity, as part of Elisabeth Rehn (UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights) to meet Izetbegovic twice. The second meeting was to ask for assistance in several investigations and freedom of movement for our team. Although, the Croats and Bosniaks "always" said yes in our meetings, they almost never came through with their promises of cooperation and assistance, whereas at least the Serbs told us NO to our faces. I don't know how it looks today, but right after the war, if you traveled to places like Gornji Vakuf- you would have thought you were in Saudi Arabia. Any downplay of radical islamic elements injected into Bosnia is pure politics. I eyewitnessed the massive aid that was being injected into the Islamic religious schools, Islamization of cities and the military. Once, during the shelling of Zepa, I and a small team of UN people- we were strangers to each other and just met up as we were seeking shelter from the shelling- ended up at the gates of Turkbat, the UN Turkish battalion. Can you imagine, in the ear shattering bursts of artillery- they hesitated to let us enter- we, UN personnel barred from entering a UN base. Reason- they did not want us reporting that a major unit of the Bosniak military was being trained and armed inside the base. We were restricted where we could walk- literally locked inside containers for two days- allowed to the mess hall and bathrooms with Turkish military escort. When the shelling died down, we were kicked out of the base.
The scale of killings in Srebrenica, well, yes, the 8,000 figure is of course just an exaggerated number from incomplete and duplicate lists, which was VERY common and not entirely the fault of agencies like UNHCR and ICRC. How many bodies does ICTY have ? Well in reality, perhaps 1,500-2,000 separate bodies identified- and of those, approximately 400-500 show evidence of execution. This is what I know from my work with our forensic teams and being on site at our (ICTY morgues). Again, massive crimes took place- but 8,000 ? Can't be proven and highly unlikely. But, as you know, when dealing with this issue- the victors need to work with large numbers. Just as in 1996 when the ICRC admitted that their best estimate of the "total" dead in Bosnia did not amount to more than 50,000. ICRC in my opinion, being Bosnia wide- and strictly non-political, had the most accurate count possible. But, Sarajevo needed the 250,000 (QUARTER of a million) number to compete with Rwanda and world attention and intervention.
I can also tell you that there were actually- very few "classic" mass graves ever found in Bosnia. I mean, the "classic" sense of a mass grave as the public knows it- a hole with many bodies thrown in. According to international legal definitions that we worked with- a massive grave is a "single" grave with more than ONE body. MOST, "mass graves" were actually cemeteries where the dead were buried or re-buried- and not the "mass" graves that most people imagine. It's the same as the reports of hundreds of thousands of "mass" rapes commited by the Serbs. The Bassiouni Commission, after exhaustive investigations across Bosnia, in a little known internal memo- reported that in their estimate- after investigations- that there was no credible evidence of perhaps more than 2,000 rapes- and even then- the definition of rape included- unwanted sexual touching- and not necessarily a sexual act. I'm saying, that none of you out there can say what the number was, no one will know, but MOST leads of those rapes led nowhere and inconclusive. One of the lead persons in those rape investigations was a close friend and colleague who also later jointed ICTY and confirmed the contents of that memo. Yet, that fiction- of the "rapes and pillage" got great press coverage because its a great headline story and creates a giant villain to hate and attack. It gave the West a "clear" target - not some "grey" complex cultural-religious dirty political reality that was.
The Serbs committed crimes, but, being in the middle of it for 12 long years- and my colleagues with the same experience- never ever considered it a one sided war- but clearly a 3-sided complex conflict whereby the Croats and Bosniaks literally got away with murder, ethnic cleansing, etc. and few have or ever will be prosecuted.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-08 15:09:31
One more thing I forgot to include about the Patriotic League Unit from 1990. These were more than just some guys with hunting rifles. Halid Chengic - a high level official in Izetbegovic’s Party of Democratic Action (SDA) - gave an interview to Ljiljan, the official newspaper of the SDA and in that that interview he said:
"Already on August 1, 1990, we had a platoon armed with automatic weapons, a machine-gun and a mortar. They all had camouflage uniforms and they pledged their allegiance in the Ustikolina mosque, with their hands on the Koran. The deceased Husein Cavrk, a BH Army major decorated with a Golden Lily award was the unit commander. He was killed on Preljuca near Gorazde."
James, I think you hit the nail on the head. The Serbs weren't angels, but they weren't bloodthirsty monsters they've been made out to be either. There were perpetrators and victims on all three sides. Serbs committed crimes to be sure, but their crimes have been systematically exaggerated, while the crimes of others have been hidden -- and all for political purposes. That's the issue here. The Hague Tribunal isn't helpful in bringing reconciliation at all, they're painting the Serbs as being uniquely criminal and everybody else as being their innocent victims. The Tribunal is leading the charge in what I see as a defamation campaign against an entire nation. Whats going on at the Tribunal isn't justice its politics.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-08 18:51:27
@ James Luko, Serbs were also responsible to be disarmed around Srebrenica. Have you read all of my comments above? Obviously, you did not. The Serbs never demilitarized around Srebrenica. The Bosnian Government had entered into demilitarization agreements with the Bosnian Serbs. According to the Agreement, the Serbs should withdraw their heavy weapons before the Bosniaks gave up their weapons. The Serbs refused to demilitarize. They never honored their part of agreement. Instead, Serb military and paramilitary troops continued using surrounding Serb villages as a base for attacks on (and brutal siege of) Srebrenica.
@ James Luko, you just admitted that you are genocide denier, thus far, your credibility drops to zero (but, I know you don't care about that). Plus, you told us you will testify for Radovan Karadzic? Ok, so you are on that side of the fence. Good to know. The definition of genocide is well established and you should spend some time and read ICTY judgments and educate yourself (I did). If judges interpreted genocide "BROADLY" as you claim, then they would certainly reach a verdict that Serbs committed genocide in Bosnia, and not just in Srebrenica, so your argument is very weak.
@ James Luko, women and children of Srebrenica were not "SPARED" as you claim. They were forcibly expelled, many of them raped, so please educate yourself before you make such claims.
@ James Luko, your claim that only 1,500 bodies of Srebrenica genocide is of course your imagination. More than 6,000 bodies have been identified, approximately 4,000 are laid to rest at the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial in Potocari.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-08 19:13:53
Andy,
Me and you started discussing about the events in Srebrenica from 1992-1995. Then, after I presented you with facts, you changed the subject to who started the war. That is irrelevant. I came here to discuss Srebrenica, not the disolution of SFRJ.
Serbs did not have right to commit genocide even if Bosniaks started the war (but Bosniaks did not start the war). It was Serbs who pulled the trigger. Izetbegovic repeatedly stated that he doesnt want the war. Serbia had repeatedly violated the SFRJ constitution and human rights of minorities in Yugoslavia, and the country simply disintegrated. It was the Serbs with the establishment of their SAO (Serb Autonomous Areas) in Bosnia and Croatia fully 1 year before Bosnia declared independence. They were well armed and they are most responsible for everything that happened in the Balkans, whether you want to accept it or not. We know that majority high profile war criminals in front of the Hague Tribunal are Serbs. Of course, your response to this will be that Hague Tribunal is somehow biased against Serbs or that possibly there is a Western conspiracy against Serbian people. It's like Serbian people are so important that the West needs to constantly make new conspiracies against them.
Sure, Milosevic and Izetbegovic were moderates when compared to Karadzic and Plavsic. I disagree with your comparison of Alija Izetbegovic and Radovan Karadzic. The reasons are obvious.
Mujahadeen were not part of ARBiH, as one former local commander of ARBiH (Konjic) explained to me. According to him, they acted alone and local members of the Army did not like them. Now, I will let ICTY make final conclusion about their involvement. Even if they were part of the ARBiH, they constituted only 0.1 to maybe 0.3% of the active force. But that has nothing to do with Srebrenica, you completely switched the topic. I think you should be more concerned about the Eastern Orthodox Christian extremists (cut-throaters), particularly Greek Volunteer Guard and other volunteers from Ukraine, Romania, Russia, and other Orthodox country that served in the Serb Army and committed horrendous crimes. Greek journalist Michas Takis wrote about them, so you may google his name and get more information. They are suing him now because he revealed that they had participated in the Srebrenica genocide.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-08 20:05:25
James Luko said: "Bosnian forces were pummeling Serb enclaves in Sarajevo with mortar attacks non-stop. Attacks agains the Serb population within Sarajevo."
James, there was no "Serb enclaves" in Sarajevo, please don't distort the truth. I was in Sarajevo during the war. Only Bosnian Muslim side of Sarajevo was under the siege, there was no Serb enclaves and besieged cities Bosnia. That's a lie.
First, Branko, as we share the same heritage, I would think you could have more respect in the your style of writing and surprised that Nolan editors allow you to use phrases such as “ that's a lie” especially regarding so easily checked a fact such as the Serb enclave of Sarajevo- Grbavica.
Here to remind you, since you have forgotten what Grbavica looked like. This is where Serbs lived in the end days in Sarajevo- and I was there, and it was pummeled, Im sure everyone can find many photos on the net of Grbavica in ruins- I saw it with my own eyes and had to explain what was Grbavica all about to the UN newbies who arrived there. So, if you wish to deny it- ok, let people check it on the net themselves.n addition, Grbavica was then, under agreement of Pale, systematically cleansed of Serbs- as I was one of the monitors for the UN Centre for Human Rights to monitor the exodus and encourage Serbs to stay during those cold months- how can you call that a “lie” to me ? I mean, I was not a visitor or reporter- I was stationed there and monitored it day in and day out with the UNMIBH HR Office Chief Peggy Hicks, and ICTY and Human Rights Monitor- Thomas Osorio, and dozens of other monitors- this is not some pro-chetnik fantasy rant. Everyone can just look it up, Grbavica, the Serb enclave of Sarajevo that was subject to intense street fighting during the war- and you can see from photos- and I'm telling you as an eyewitness- it was pummeled and put into ruins. I mean, I lived in Sarajevo at that time- how could you say there were no Serb enclaves ?? I will not say what you are saying is a lie, its an incorrect fact, but I will not use the language and emotional knee-jerk reaction of using such a phrase as “that's a lie.” But as we both know, both having our origins from that part of the world, that it's that kind of emotionalism which led to the uncivilized fratricide and keeps Bosnia in the dark ages even today.
n the 1991 census, Sarajevo had over 157,000 residents declaring themselves, Serbs, and comprised over 30% of the cities population. So in Sarajevo- where did 157,000 Serbs live ? Sorry Branko, I don't wish to invalidate your experiences, but it was our mission to patrol, along with the Italian forces at that time, before Dayton was reached, the front lines within Sarajevo- and those “Serb” enclaves were being pummeled. So, you can call my experience in Sarajevo, incorrect, or maybe I didn't remember well, or maybe the reports I sent were misinformation in colusion with all my UN colleagues- but don't call it a lie.
During that time I was under the command of the UN Centre for Human Rights Field Monitoring Office, reporting to Peggy Hicks of UNMIBH, and my superior Roman Wierusezewski in Geneva.
Branko – were you there as an investigator ? Maybe I don't know, please let us know. But I was. I was not a casual observer- I investigated incidents and the situations first hand, speaking to the relative persons who could be accessed. So, my information as investigator is first hand, on the spot. What was your official capacity there ? I mean, if you were not, and did not have any official authorization to investigate, then, well, your information is “SECOND” hand right ? I mean, if you were not an investigator- then its like saying, there was a murder in Chicago- and because you live in Chicago YOU know all about that murder and what the correct facts are/were. But you don't right, just because you live in Chicago during the time of that murder- you have no first hand facts about it, underlying cause and ability to filter rumor from fact right ? So that's why I'm interested, in order to better validate your statements, what your official capacity in Bosnia was ? And I'm not saying this in an offensive demeaning context, I'm just interested to know how we can compare notes, maybe we were on the
same ground at the same time ? Who knows.
“James Luko, Serbs were also responsible to be disarmed around Srebrenica. “
Sure, Branko, the “Safe Haven” resolution called for both sides “within” the “Safe Area” limits to disarm. The difference is that UN assets were in and around the town- therefore the disarming would have been feasible and direct, it would have made the case stronger in order to pressure the Serbs to disarm. But, as all accounts convey- BOTH sides broke the agreement from the beginning, so, what's the point ? It's irrelevant- the warring continued.
James Luko, you just admitted that you are genocide denier, thus far, your credibility drops to zero (but, I know you don't care about that).
Branko, no I did not say or imply that I'm a “genocide” denier per se, I said, its impossible in my professional experienced opinion, and, from being one of the two FIRST UN investigators to begin the extensive interviews of Srebrenica DP's, that Srebrenica qualifies under the concept of Genocide. In addition, I fully support the charges of ethnic cleansing, extra-judicial killings, massacres, murder, torture, etc. etc. But not genocide- in the case of Srebrenica. I don't “deny” it as you put it, as if its an established FACT and I am simply saying the world is flat- denying a unversally and proven fact- but I don't agree legally that the conditions of genocide are met in the Srebrenica case. Does that make me evil ? Does that mean I say that crimes were not committed ? No, It does not mean anything except that I have the first hand experience- and the first hand interviews which are now being ignored- and will not allow political imperatives pressure me to say that to which I believe does not qualify under the concept of genocide.
Plus, you told us you will testify for Radovan Karadzic? Ok, so you are on that side of the fence. Good to know.
On which side ? So if the defense counsel asked me to testify in regards to certain reports I submitted during the war in my official capacity- that makes me ?? what- on “their” side ? You mean Branko, I should not testify as to the reports I submitted during my time with the UN ? You mean, … muzzle me ? Keep me quiet ? I mean, the reports are there- and they are part of the evidence- so , I don't understand how that makes me on “that” side ? It's a court procedure no ? If the defense asks for a relevant witness to testify on substantive evidence you are saying I should DENY the Defense's request ? Is that “justice” and “due process of law” in your opinion Branko ?
The definition of genocide is well established ( Branko- if you say so. I , however, as a qualified expert- as well as the academic legal community, agree that one of the MAIN problems in genocide prosecutions has been that the definitions has NOT been well established. That's my expert opinion, if you disagree, that's fine.)
and you should spend some time and read ICTY judgments and educate yourself (I did). If judges interpreted genocide "BROADLY" as you claim, then they would certainly reach a verdict that Serbs committed genocide in Bosnia, and not just in Srebrenica, so your argument is very weak.
(Branko, and by that same token, there would be a boatload of Bosniak and Croats in the Court dock who are now wandering freely. My argument is “very weak” what argument did I make ? I mean, I worked for the Prosecution's Office of the ICTY for eight years- I know first hand how they struggled with the genocide parameters to make “something” stick under the charge of genocide)
@ James Luko, women and children of Srebrenica were not "SPARED" as you claim. They were forcibly expelled, many of them raped, so please educate yourself before you make such claims.
Branko, what does “many of them” raped mean ? I mean, what investigation on that did you do ? Many “claim” is stated by the Bosniak government, no one else.
Well, you know what I said, by “spared” meaning they were not killed, or killed later in battle as the majority of the dead were killed by those means, and were “evacuated” by the Serbs. So that's what it means in the English language- “spared.” So, this is a major flaw in the genocide charge and interpretation of the ICTY Chambers.
Branko, in closing, I take your point that Andy began to wander off of the debate a bit, but by the same token, I think you are taking an angry and emotional response to me- as if you cannot "objectively" debate the issue with me. Is it because, I was there- unlike andy, and I was not a casual observer but an investigator, an officer of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor for 8 years- thus adding some legitimacy and credibility that you yourself now turn to a hostile and "subjective" stance regarding me ? I mean, you can easily deny Andy, cause he wasn't there, didn't have the first hand experience to validate what he says- so you are reasonable, polite and objective in your debate with him. But seems to me, you lost that objectivity when confronted with first hand, expert opinion from myself that doesn't flow with what you wish to force down people's throats. It's something that you and the world doesn't want to hear, because your version of history has already been written.
I would just say in response to several posts elsewhere on the web, in reference to what i'm saying here - labeling me as a "racist and extremist" that I spend 3 1/2 years as the UN Human Rights Coordinator in Banja Luka- RS, risking life and limb protecting Muslims and Croatians living in Banja Luka. Those Muslims and Croatians who remained, after intense pressure and ethnic cleaning committed, mainly by Serbian paramilitary, in Banja Luka, had many of their property rights denied. So, the fact that I was sent to Tuzla airbase by the UN HR Special Rapporteur to investigate the fall of Srebrenica and Zepa, does not- in my view constitute racist or extremist psychology. In addition, it's an incredible attitude of flat earth orthodoxy being taken by some, as if, pointing out that the evacuation of most of the women and children (I did not say ALL- i said MOST) by the Serbian forces, negates the very important element of genocide- that being the physical destruction- in whole or part of a people's. That does not mean, that my reports- "exonerated" the Serbs, does not mean that massacre, murder, torture, killings, etc. did not take place. It's a question of whether there was an intent to exterminate a "people's" in a given area- and the fact that most of the women and children were evacuated by Serbian forces- seems to disqualify such intent. It does not mean that I think the murder of how many ever Muslims was some how justified or did not take place merely because I think the legal elements of genocide is not present in the case of Srebrenica. I do believe, from my first hand investigation with the Srebrenica DP's- in Tuzla- even though most were handpicked by Sarajevo representatives- that their testimony to us supported the claim that a substantial number of Muslims - soldiers- and para-military- died in the ensuing battles during their flight from the Safe Haven to Bosniak territory. I mean, that's not an "opinion" or belief or a hope- of mine, its what the DP's- Muslims- testified to at the time. Later, stories get changed as a trend in the story begins to build as to what the case is going to be. I have no influence over that, but that does not deny what I and Hubert Wieland submitted after our interviews.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-09 14:19:25
Branko, The article that spawned this discussion has nothing at all to do with Srebrenica. It's about whether or not Radovan Karadzic is getting a fair trial in The Hague, specifically whether he is being given a fair amount of preparation time or not.
You came here and you changed the subject to what happened in Srebrenica, and yes, I changed the subject to who started the war.
I did it because I really don't care what the Serbs did to the Muslims in Srebrenica, whatever they did (and I agree they did some awful things to them) they did in the context of a war that the Muslims started. If there hadn't been a war, there wouldn't have been any executions or ethnic cleansing. It's as simple as that.
I'm an American, you can't seriously expect me to hold the Bosnian-Serb military to a higher standard than I hold my own military. You don't see me protesting on V-J Day and accusing American World War II veterans of genocide against the Japanese.
On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked our Navy Base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii -- the very next day we declared war against Japan, and in that war we did far worse things to the Japanese than the Serbs ever even dreaned of doing to the Muslims in Bosnia.
On the night of Mach 9-10, 1945 we firebombed Tokyo and in that one night of bombing 100,000 people died and a million more lost their homes. Just that one night of bombing killed as many people as the entire Bosnian war, and even then we weren't done, we used nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed hundreds of thousands more people. Compared to what we did to Japan, Srebrenica was a day at the beach.
Nobody in America accuses our veterans of genocide. On the contrary, we're proud of them. We call them "the greatest generation". I went to the Reno Air Races in Nevada a few years back and they had the crew of the Enola Gay (the plane that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan) there signing autographs. When those guys stood infont of the crowd during the national anthem they got a standing ovation from everybody there. Those guys are national heroes. We've even got the Enola Gay itself on display at the Smithsonian museum.
Here's the point. Everything America did to Japan was justified by the fact that Japan attacked our military. Japan's civilians suffered far worse than America's civilians, Japan didn't bomb a single American city, but that doesn't mean that America was the bad guy. Discussions about who suffered worse in Bosnia are as pointless as discussing whether Americans or Japanese suffered worse in World War II.
Japan started the war and by doing so they brought their fate on themselves. Likewise, the Muslims started the Bosnian war and in doing so they brought their fate down on their own heads.
So honestly, I don't care what happened in Srebrenica. I think you're exaggerating, but even if you're not I still don't care.
"I think you are taking an angry and emotional response to me- as if you cannot "objectively" debate the issue with me. Is it because, I was there..."
Those were my exact thoughts when I noticed how he all of a sudden resorted to rhetoric such as "genocide denier" , as soon as he realized that you could refute any of his arguments with facts.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-09 16:01:38
One more thing. If the Mujahadeen weren't part of the ARBiH how can anybody explain these documents.
1) [link edited for length] This document from the FBiH defense ministry shows that the Mujahadeen were awarded with official military honors by the ARBiH.
2) [link edited for length] This is an order for units of the ARBiH to report for training by the Mujahadeen.
3) [link edited for length] Here is an order issued by the command of the 3rd Corps of the ARBiH to the Mujahadeen.
4) [link edited for length] Here is an order for the ARBiH to support the Mujahadeen in their combat operations.
It's obvious that the Mujahadeen were part of the ARBiH. If the ARBiH didn't want them around why did they give them give them medals for their service? Why did they report for training with them? Why did they issue orders to them and support their combat operations?
As far as the whole "Srebrenica genocide denier" label is concerned, it may not sound pretty, but it's accurate. What's a "genocide denier" if it's not somebody who denies an allegation of genocide.
There are Serbs who claim to be victims of genocide at the hands of the Muslims, if Branko says the Muslims didn't commit genocide against the Serbs then he's a genocide denier too.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-09 20:40:13
James, I don't hate you. It's a 'tough love.' In some ways, you are my blood. We come from same ethnic background. As I challenge your opinion, I need to say things directly in your face so you can understand them. However, I don't hate you, so calm down.
@ I was not there as an investigator, but I was there as a Serb trapped in a Muslim side of Sarajevo, subsequently wounded by a sniper (as a civilian!) and barelly survived. All my information is from FIRST HAND, as I was witnessing the daily terror and artillery attacks on Sarajevo by Ratko Mladic's Army. Don't you dare to call my experience in war "SECOND HAND." Anyways, you can be an investigator, you can be professor, you can be a doctor, you can be historian - but, it's credibility that counts, not a title. Since you publicly denied the genocide (on numerous occassions), do you honestly think that you still have any credibility? You're certainly not an academic source, and I am saying this not to insult you (God forbid) but because it's the truth.
@ James, Grbavica was not the enclave as Srebrenica, it was not besieged by Muslim forces. I hate to say it, but your argument is not correct, because I was there the whole time. As a Serbian who grew up with Muslims (now Bosniaks), I was in the besieged Sarajevo until 1996. Remember, I was in the besieged part of Sarajevo and wounded by Mladic's sniper. A Muslim man saved my life, but that's another story. I hope you realize why I don't support Radovan Karadzic's camp. If a Jew saved your life, would you hate him? Would you deny his suffering? Of course you wouldn't. I am not saying anything to demean you.
@ Yes, we can compare notes. I will send you my contact info via your web site, is that okay?
@ Are you aware that many Serbs died as a result of artillery attacks on Sarajevo?
@ True, 100,000+ Serbs left Sarajevo after the Dayton Agreement was signed. Nobody expelled Sarajevo Serbs by force (I go to Sarajevo every year, many-many Muslims also left, but many also relocated to Sarajevo from Sanjak and Podrinje). So, you cannot reasonably claim that Serbs were expelled by force from Grbavica. There is a difference. Radovan Karadzic's leadership encourage all Sarajevo Serbs to leave their homes and refuse living in "Islamic Sarajevo," as they called it. I clearly remember, as if it happened yesterday, that local SDS leadership even encouraged people to dig out graves of their loved ones and move them from Sarajevo to "Serbian territories." That was not a case of ethnic cleansing. Do you know what the ethnic cleansing is? It's a forcible removal of 150,000 Serbs from Krajina. That was a case of ethnic cleansing.
@ James, now you are changing your story. You claim that you don't deny genocide, but your past notes indicate that you're denying genocide. This way, you deny your own denial. Plus, you questioned the number of killed, claiming only 1500 were found, which is innacurate. Approximatley 4000 bodies of those missing in July 1995 have already been laid to rest in Potocari. TOtal of 6,000+ bodies are DNA-identified and the ICMP stated in July 11, 2009 press relase that blood/bone samples indicate 8,100 dead in July 1995.
@ James, just because you have a law degree, it doesnt mean anything. You never served on the bench as a judge or even a state prosecutor (I also never served on any legal bench!). Who am I to deny that genocide happened? Who the heck am I? I never served on the bench as an international judge, I never served on the bench in the supreme court of any country, I mean, who gives me right to be a smartass and deny genocide and all the legal reasoning behind it? Think about it.
@ My friend James, Muslims tried and tried to prove that genocide occured in all other municipalities, but they failed. Do you know why they failed? It's because the ICTY's definition of genocide is "very, very, very narrow." Let me quote the concentration camp survivor, Polish-Jewish Judge Theodor Meron:
"The judgment which the Appeals Chamber has pronounced will be of importance not only in acknowledging the crime committed in Srebrenica for what it is, but also in developing and enhancing the international criminal law’s understanding of genocide. By discussing and elaborating the legal requirement of genocide, and by explaining how they applied it in the circumstances of Srebrenica, the Appeals Chamber has facilitated the recognition – and, I hope, the prevention – of this horrible crime... The gravity of genocide is reflected in the stringent requirements which must be satisfied before this conviction is imposed. These requirements – the demanding proof of specific intent and the showing that the group was targeted for destruction in its entirety or in substantial part – guard against a danger that convictions for this crime will be imposed lightly. Where these requirements are satisfied, however, the law must not shy away from referring to the crime committed by its proper name. By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity. The Bosnian Serb forces were aware, when they embarked on this genocidal venture, that the harm they caused would continue to plague the Bosnian Muslims. The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act."
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-09 20:49:31
I forgot to respond to this point:
James said: "
Sure, Branko, the “Safe Haven” resolution called for both sides “within” the “Safe Area” limits to disarm. The difference is that UN assets were in and around the town- therefore the disarming would have been feasible and direct, it would have made the case stronger in order to pressure the Serbs to disarm. But, as all accounts convey- BOTH sides broke the agreement from the beginning, so, what's the point ? It's irrelevant- the warring continued."
My response is: YES, you are correct. Both sides violated the demilitarization agreement. But, genocide deniers (Radovan Karadzic camp supporters) always argue that ONLY the Muslims side was responsible to demilitarize, which is not true.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-09 20:52:10
To: Suvorov In fact, I refutted all genocide denial arguments that James and Andy brought up. But, of course, you people only see what you want to see, which is fine with me. Facts do not depend on you accepting them.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-09 20:59:00
Andy,
As I said, Mujahadeens represented only 0.1 to possibly 0.3 of active defense force. Whether they were part of regular ARBiH forces is up to the courts to determine. But, even if they were - so what? Thousands of Christian Orthodox extremists came to fight on the side of the Serbs.
Andy, Bosniaks certainly did not commit genocide against Serbs in Srebrenica, and you cannot call me "genocide denier" because I am telling the truth. It is a fact that Serbs in/around Srebrenica committed the genocide against Bosniaks in Srebrenica. But, I know that you disagree with the findings of the highest World Court.
I am NOT labeling you as a genocide denier; in fact, you admitted publicly that you are genocide denier and that's the exact term you used to describe yourself.
In the article, "JAMES LUKO - DISGRACED GENOCIDE DENIER " there is absolutely no mentions of you being "racist", so I don't understand where you got that from? Maybe from people who left comments on that article?
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-09 21:29:13
Branko, If somebody makes an allegation of genocide and somebody else denies it, that makes who denies it a "genocide denier". A genocide denier a person who denies an allegation of genocide. There are Serbs who say Muslims committed genocide against them in Srebrenica, yet you say: "Bosniaks certainly did not commit genocide against Serbs in Srebrenica". You've denied an allegation of genocide, therefore you're a genocide denier too. Everybody here is a genocide denier. Can you see how stupid of an attack that is to make against somebody?
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-10 13:30:13
Branko, My point about genocide denial makes perfect sense. If you deny an allegation of genocide you're a genocide denier. It's as simple as that.
The allegation that the Bosnian-Serbs committed genocide in Srebrenica isn't a fact it's an opinion. It's also an opinion that Serbs were victims of genocide at the hands of the Muslims. I don't believe that anybody has committed genocide in the former Yugoslavia since the Second World War.
I can show you official Serbian documents which conclude that the Bosnian-Serbs were victims of "genocide" in Srebrenica and in other municipalities throughout Bosnia. Your rejection of that material makes you a "genocide denier" just like me.
It is the Hague Tribunal's opinion that the Bosnian-Serbs committed genocide against the Muslims of Srebrenica. It's not a fact as you claim.
It is also the Hague Tribunal's opinion that "the existence of a plan or policy is not a legal ingredient of the crime of genocide" and that "the perpetrator’s genocidal intent will almost invariably encompass civilians, but that is not a legal requirement of the offence of genocide" and that "the offence of genocide does not require proof that the perpetrator chose the most efficient method to accomplish his objective of destroying the targeted part. Even where the method selected will not implement the perpetrator’s intent to the fullest, leaving that destruction incomplete, this ineffectiveness alone does not preclude a finding of genocidal intent."
The Hague Tribunal has stretched the definition of "genocide" to the point of absurdity in order to apply it to Srebrenica. To quote the Krstic Appeals judgement: "the Trial Chamber treated the killing of the men of military age as evidence from which to infer that Radislav Krstic and some members of the VRS Main Staff had the requisite intent to destroy all the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica." Indeed, "The main evidence underlying the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the VRS forces intended to eliminate all the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica was the massacre by the VRS of all men of military age from that community."
Raphael Lemkin invented the word "genocide" in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. He wrote "New conceptions require new terms. By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homocide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."
According to Lemkin, genocide is accomplished by mass killings of "all members of a nation", not just the military aged men. Genocide explicitly denotes killing, hence the latin suffix "cide". Expelling people from their homes isn't genocide. Making people feel insecure and miserable isn't genocide. Genocide is accomplished by killing.
But even mass killing by itself isn't genocide (i.e. the US attacks on Japan during WW2, allied carpet bombing of Dresden, etc...). The killing has to be carried out pursuant to a coordinated plan forthe explicit purpose of annihilating the ethnic group as such.
The Tribunal is all alone in its belief that there doesn't have to be a plan -- if there's no plan there's no genocide. The Tribunal's finding of genocide in Srebrenica is based on an inference they drew from the killing of military aged men during a civil war.
They assume that because the Serbs massacred military-aged Muslim men from Srebrenica, in the context of a civil war (which the Muslims started), that their underlying motive must have been to kill all of the Bosnian-Muslims, eventhough the Serbs evacuated the Muslim women and children to safety. I'm sorry, but that's a dumb inference and I reject it. That's what makes me a "Srebrenica genocide denier" and I have no trouble with that label.
There are several motives which are far more plausable than genocide. The motive behind killing the military aged men could have been to ensure control over the territory by killing anybody who could challenge Serbian military dominance in the region. Another motive in killing the military aged men could have been to avenge Serbs who died at the hands of Muslims attacking Serbian villages from Srebrenica.
NATO countries provide the vast majority of the Hague Tribunal's fuding and enforcement capabilities. NATO was also a party to the very conflicts that the Hague Tribunal claims to be adjudicating international law in now. NATO allied itself with the Bosnian-Muslims and it bombed the Bosnian-Serbs. NATO has a clear political interest in whitewashing the wartime activities of its allies (the Bosnian-Muslims), and in villifying the wartime activities of its opponents (the Serbs). The Hague Tribunal depends on NATO countries for its very existance. Of course it marches to NATO's drum because NATO wouldn't fund it otherwise.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-10 16:05:51
To call Srebrenica "genocide" is offensive.
Over 90% of the 3.3 million Jews who lived in Poland before the second world war were killed by the Nazis -- that's genocide. By contrast, even if we take the Tribunal at its word, the Muslim "men and boys" (mostly, but not all, military aged) from Srebrenica that the Tribunal says were killed by Serbian forces only accounted for, according to the Tribunal, one-fifth of the population the other 80% of the Srebrenica Muslims lived.
Nonsense like this "Srebrenica Genocide Blog" trying to equate Srebrenica with Hitler's Holocaust against the Jews is an insult to the Jews. [link edited for length]
I'm sorry Muslims, you didn't have a "joint experience" that you can compare to the Jews living under Hitler.
The Jews didn't do anything to provoke the Nazis. The Nazis systematically killed the vast majority of the Jews who lived in the territories they controlled. European Jewry still hasn't recovered its pre-war numbers.
In Bosnia the Muslims started a secessionist war against Yugoslavia in which they were opposed by the Serbs, and the overwhelming majority of them survived that war.
When Bosnia completes its census in 2011 (the first since the war ended), I'll bet we find that Muslims make-up 43.47% of the population or more. Which would put them at or ahead of where they were before the 1991 census (Bosnia's last before the war).
To compare the plight of the Bosnian-Muslims to European Jews during the Holocaust strains credulity.
Posted By: Branko Zivanovic
Date: 2009-11-11 14:10:01
@ Sam: A circle of deniers supporting each other. That's the way to go. Andy will always win an argument when he has an audience (like you) who supports the Milosevic/Karadzic camp. These types of people only hear what they want to hear; they only see what they want to see. And I am saying this respectfully.
@ James: Our blog is open to your response, re our article (Google: James Luko). Some people who worked with you in Belgrade and Bosnia gave us more insight into your activities. I think that you cosmetically inflated your resume, haven't you?
@ Andy: I have a feeling you don't read all my responses, so I will keep it as short as possible this time. It seems to me that you skim over my responses without giving them due respect. I will keep this response as short as possible.
1.The issue of the Holocaust and Srebrenica is not a nonsense. Here are some facts:
The following Srebrenica genocide videos have been documented and published by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Here is the link: [link edited for length]
In his latest OP/ED article for the Guardian, titled "Holocaust day of reckoning won't come," a highly respected Jewish author Antony Lerman - the former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research - reminds Guardian readers that "we can never close the book on the Holocaust or Srebrenica." You can read his article here [link edited for length]
Judge Theodor Meron [Polish-American Jew] and survivor of the Nazi concentration camps was a presiding judge when the ICTY handed down genocide judgment. Serb forces "targeted for extinction the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica" (Krstic). Read what he said http://www.icty.org/sid/8409 (make sure to read it).
2. Andy, let's face the facts (and I am saying this respectfully): you don't have the skills, experience, or academic backing to interpret what constitutes genocide. Personal opinions are cheap, everybody has them. They are worth 2 cents or less. However, the World's highest court (ICJ) has accepted the ruling that Serb forces committed the genocide at Srebrenica. Nobody can change that ruling.
The Hague Tribunal also ruled that what happened in Srebrenica was genocide. There are more genocide judgments coming in the Srebrenica Seven case. Nobody can change that ruling.
Then, we also have other genocide judgments handed down by the Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina (presided by the international judges). Nobody can change them.
Ask yourself, is an opinion of Andy Wilxocson - who, by the way, has no academic backing and no experience of an international judge - is a personal opinion of Andy Wilxocson more credible than immense evidence and world's highest courts' rulings on the genocide? I don't have to mention it to you that you are also on record for denying the genocide. I don't know do you understand, or maybe you refuse to understand the serioussness of the damage you did to your credibility when you repeatedly denied the genocide. You're certainly not an academic source. Do you understand what that means?
3. To say that the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia is "NATO Court" or "Kangaroo Court" is a real nonsense. Who cares who funds the Hague Tribunal? They have nothing to do with the judgments. You don't understand that, because you don't have any experience or appreciation for the international law.
4. I already refuted your excerpts from Radislav Krstic's judgment. You misunderstood the Krstic judgment and I already responded to that issue in one of my earlier comments, which you did not read.
5. I owe you one more response with respect to General Philippe Morillon, who spent more time drinking alcohol with General Ratko Mladic and his soldiers, then taking care of the people of Srebrenica. Gen Philippe Morillon has not credibility. This is a man who has been pro-Serb oriented since the day he first tasted sljivovica with Serbs around Srebrenica. Philippe Morillon never mentioned that long before Bosniaks counter-attacked Serb military bases around Srebrenica, Serbs killed more than 11,000 Muslim civilians in Podrinje (this is a wider region where Srebrenica is located).
Philippe Morillon never mentioned that from 1992-1995 Serbs from heavily militarized villages around Srebrenica had forced approximately 40,000 Bosnian Muslim refugees to live in the Srebrenica ghetto with little or no means of survival. The number of refugees increased to 80,000 by winter 1992/93.
Serb Army stationed around Srebrenica never demilitarized, even though they were required to do so under the 1993 demilitarization agreements. Furthermore, Serbs around Srebrenica constantly attacked neighbouring Bosnian Muslim villages, frequently bombarding them from air and with Serbian airplanes. More than 400 Bosnian Muslim villages were destroyed around Srebrenica in 1992 with at least 11,000 Bosniaks killed in Podrinje (region encompasing Srebrenica).
In July 1995 the Bosnian Serb army staged a brutal takeover of Srebrenica and its surrounding area, where they proceeded to perpetrate genocide. Bosnian Serb soldiers and paramilitary thugs, both groups commonly known as "Chetniks," separated Bosniak families, forcibly expelled 30,000 Bosniaks, and summarily executed at least 8,372 Bosnian Muslims - boys, men, and the elderly.
6. One more thing. Since I came here to comment, somebody was posting articles signed by your name in a comment section @ Srebrenica Genocide Blog. If this is you, at least sign your comment with your name if you are going to do that. We accept regular comments, just like here, but no articles are accepted in the comments section. Just so you know.
7. I demolished all your denial claims with factual arguments. However, debating with you and Mr. Luko is like debating with a blind person whether the color is blue or pink. To allocate my time to other activities, I will thank you for the debate. If you have anything else to say, feel free to post unregistered comment at the Srebrenica Genocide Blog. Thanks.
(I did enjoy the debate and factually responded to plenty of weak arguments raised in this section. Hope you also enjoyed the debate. Thanks.)
Yes I have tried to respond, but as I am in China, blogspot as well as some other general sites, are blocked from being viewed here, so I am at a disadvantage. In addition, as I said before, saying that a legal element of genocide is not met, does not mean that all the other crimes did not take place, but without the overall legal definition of genocide. So, I think you and your blog supporters are just reaching at something to bash to think that I "deny" the attrocities that happened there ? You and your blog supporters can't see the difference between denying what happened in Srebrenica and asserting that a legal term does not qualify. I have tried to reach your sites via proxy but was unsuccessful so I am unable to respond.
I would suggest that you review cases of genocide since the 1920's and you would see that genocide cases are "indiscrimate" of age and gender- its an important element. Second, if the "legal" argument of genocide was so simple, clear and irrefutable, why would it take thousands of documents, witnesses and 3 years to prove it ? But in any case, for the people who follow your blog and support justice- and the "good" thing- they sure have some choice phrases of words which of course can't be repeated here- to fill my email inboxes with.
I would also cite that actions speak louder than the words here or on your blogspot. If you read the story in the UK telegraph (google james luko karadzic) you would notice that I was a key player in an attempt to arrest Karadzic. The attempt was "apparently" called off by London at the last moment, however, isn't strange that if I were so- Pro-Karadzic, and a "defender" of the attrocities which happened there that I would have taken part in an attempt to arrest Karadzic ? I mean, of the people on your blog and those in these discussions- separating words from actual deeds- it seems I am the only one here who actually took any ACTION to accomplish justice- that of the arrest of Karadzic. You might have seen a previous comment where my point in this legal argument is to say, it would be a mockery of our (ICTY) work to prosecute those who are guilty- if then- in a turn around, we, the justice "providers" prosecute him with a sham trial. You can't see the distinction there ? between someone who is in "Karadzic's " " CAMP" and one who is saying- if you prosecute him- do it correctly- lest, the real supporters of Karadzic will forever point out that he was convicted by the use of an unfair trial. So you can't understand that point ? Well, THAT is what I am, and have been advocating- THAT is the point of doing it right, and making sure the legalities apply, that there is equality of arms, that the ICTY materials have integrity, etc. etc.
That is the point Branko, NOT, with the use of your connotative phrase- "genocide denier" to DENY that war crimes took place- I have consistently repeated that several different types of war crimes took place at Srebrenica- but you and your cohorts completely ignore that in the "rants" using phrases like "extremist" and "racist."
Had a friend cut and paste your blog report. So here is a short response, sorry I must make it via this forum, but unfortunately cannot access blogspot and several other sites from here.
The former Operations Officer for the Belgrade-based Hague Tribunal’s Liaison Office — and the former ‘human rights investigator’ who is on record for denying the Srebrenica genocide — is back to his old tricks again. We find James Luko on NolanChart’s web site in a self-described profile titled “Confessions of an Ethnic Cleanser.” (1)
Old tricks Branko ? what “old” tricks is the blog speaking about ? I wonder ? Or, just another slander – looks like just another ad hominem attack- your specialized techniques.
Imagine this discredited genocide denier, James Luko, testifying at the trial of Radovan Karadzic and pretending to be fair and balanced? Based on his history of distortions, he is a perfect fit for the Karadzic defense. We hope Prosecutors firstGoogle his name before they cross-examine him. According to his web site, he is writing a book regarding his ‘experiences’ with the UN and the Tribunal titled “Inside the Hague Tribunal” – yet another genocide denial garbage, certainly not an academic resource.
“pretending to be fair and balanced” ah- so again- a slander – that accuses that I’m “lying” liar- he’ is a liar because he “pretends” to be fair and balanced. Ok, nice hatchet job.
“certainly NOT an ACADEMIC resource” ah, well, I disagree, an expert- trained, educated and experienced in his field (that’s me)– and who is a primary source (that’s me)- is often considered “ an academic resource” so, guys- get a dictionary. Your slander does not even hold up to a simple dictionary reference.
his morbidly pro-Serb activist, the former “human rights investigator” was so biased that he even filed false reports back to the U.N. trying to deny that genocide ever took place in Srebrenica.
“morbidly pro-Serb activist” – complete slander, I am not a pro-serb “activist” I am telling another side to the story which I know of first hand, and presenting opinions from reports that “we” collectively- filed from the field. That’s not pro-serb activism is it ?
Here is a better one from you guys- and total slander “ he even filed “FALSE” reports back to the U.N.” ok- complete slander- please refer to the report which I filed which was false ? Tell me the date, file number, contents- how would the blog ‘know’ that the reports were ‘false’ ? What I said- was based on 96 interviews at Tuzla- we had possibly one eyewitness- originally- all 96 persons claimed to have been eyewitnesses to the executions- but, after extensive interviews by myself, Hubert Wieland, EJ Flynn, 95 recanted and admitted- they were repeating hearsay and did not actually eyewitness those acts. So, at that time, our report- reflected exactly what they said- 95 out of 96 claimed eyewitnesses saw nothing- they were not in a position to. So- HOW is that a FALSE report ?? Exlain the slander ? There were NO false reports- you may disagree with any of the “comments” or opinions we may have expressed in those reports- but they were not FALSE- and what your blog say is out and out slander.
It is important to note that James Luko does not posses academic skills, experience and credentials that would enable him to judge/interpret what does and what doesn’t constitute a case of genocide; he certainly never worked as an international judge. In this regard, he is incompetent. Consider the following two statement by James L
Do you really support the above statement ? Another ad hominem attack to “defuse” me, and YOUR blogs attempt to discredit- but I think one of the two investigative teams (not related to Srebrenica case) thought differently when they put me on the list to testify in their cases.
consider this distorted statement by James Luko
“I can also confirm that our UN Office in Bosnia was regularly reporting the direct reports of Bosniak attacks on Serb villages around Srebrenica, but we were repeatedly ignored.” (9)
“consider this DISTORED” statement” huh ? what is distorted about it ? I think its your SLANDER that is distorted. Yes, from our container in Ilica Zagreb, UN HQ, Hubert Wieland sent the “direct reports” from the UN OPS of “Bosniak attacks on Serb villages around Srebrenica” now guys, open your eyes and clear out your heads- what is distorted about that statement ? Do I even “claim” that those attacks took place here ? No, I just stated the FACT that Hubert sent on the reports that we regularly got from the UN OP’s, we didn’t make those reports- we just sent them further on to our HQ in Geneva. So, please explain what is distorted about that ? The FACT is, our office in Geneva, indeed, never reflected those reports in their Summary reports which they regularly issued. Where is the distortion ? ah, there is none because its just another SLANDER in your blog’s “attempt” to discredit by the use of defamation and slander.
Seems like your blogs have set themselves up as the “moral” and “court” authority of the world. Able to dispense judgement at a whim- judging me as pro-serb, extremist, racist. In fact, if what I say is so “discredited” why the big ad hominem attack campaign on me ? Why include highly subjective and incorrect adjectives like “discredited” ? Who discredited me ? You and your blog ? So- … ? I don’t understand- you discredit “my opinions” ? not possible. You discredit my educational background ? You discredit 12 years working for the United Nations in the field, including Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia ?? So I don’t understand who discredited me ? From what authority ? You mean you “attempt” discredit me- I have NOT been discredited – as it were done by some authorities in the past. You discredit that for several years I was the Deputy Head of the ICTY OTP Office in Belgrade ? You discredit that I was one of the investigators with Hubert Wieland at Tuzla airbase conducting the interviews of the Tuzla DP’s ? I could go on and on- how would one – especially you guys- discredit those FACTS ? It’s because you DON”T want someone with that experience and authority saying the things I’m saying, that’s why you guys have resorted to ad hominem attacks and email flaming, and etc. If what I had to say DIDN’Tshock you guys- into shaking your flat earth beliefs, you guys would not have resorted to such infantile slander and email flaming techniques. Your attempt is NOT to refute my arguments, but to MUZZLE me, suppress me, hammer the nail back down- cause here is someone who would know- about these things- and he doesn’t agree with what we have to say- so lets in turn- use another technique- slander, defamation, flaming, etc.
I mean your blog is laced with the term – discredit- as if it happened by some authority already and you guys are merely repeating what has already happened- oh- “he’ was “discredited” so whatever he has to say has zero merit. I see, just another attempt, as are certain other characters- keystone cops at the Tribunal, to MUZZLE and SLANDER someone who disagrees about a legal element of a concept which has virtually no case law to support it- nor an internationally agreed upon definition- genocide. So, in addition to rebutting his arguments- lets DEFAME him, lets SLANDER him by “ADDING” subjective rhetoric and internet flaming techniques- calling him a racist and extremist, pro-serb, etc. etc. Wow, it’s like I committed the genocide myself eh ? Like I was wearing a chetnik uniform out there ? THIS is the picture you guys areTRYING to make in order to muzzle facts and authority for which you do not want to see or hear. I mean, if I were pro-serb, why would have I participated in the arrest attempt of Karadzic ? Why would have I spent 3 years in Banja Luka, mainly working to protect and uphold the legal rights of Muslims and Croats there ? Doesn’t make sense does it- ? if I were pro-Serb ? How would you explain that ? How do you explain my eager participation in the arrest attempt of Karadzic ?[link edited for length]
So I’m sorry to respond to your blog on this forum, but as I say, I am unable to log on to that site myself and was given a copy of the blog comments by a friend.
not an academic resource- m
mm? Well, oops- you guys conveniently left his out of your rants eh ? Oh here is James Luko referenced by a professor in an academic book- as a…. let’s not say it- “academic resource.” Oh my God, contact the printer- erase James Luko from that book- he is a nobody- a racist extremist- we know him well ! We know all about this guy- every detail we know. He’s a Liar- he sends false reports, we know these things- how- well, we have a blog so what we say is good and true.
oh my God, here he is again, the genocidal maniac extremist racist- look, although he was and is a nobody, knew nothing, is not a resource of any kind, look here he is on world wide and National TV in China discussing NATO, don’t they know he’s a nobody ? He’s not an academic, he know’s nothing- but there he is on national Chinese TV, a pro-serb racist. So, will you guys flame their email boxes too ? Somebody send them an email quick- that guy James Luko- well, we know all about him- he’s a nobody and nothing so don’t listen to what he’s got to say. He has no credibility, not a resource- even though he speaks to a world wide audience on CCTV9 and National Chinese television. I guess, the blogspot rant conveniently forgot this reference during their search.
Lester Pearson Peacekeeping Centre- Ottawa Canada- the premier peacekeeping training center, - well, might as well flame them too because they had invited me, whilst I was still with ICTY, to be one of the guest lectures on the issue of war crimes- I guess, they routinely invite racist extremists, who are NOT an academic resource- to lecture the worlds most prestigious peacekeeping and training institute. They routinely have “discredited” persons to lecture their experts. Wow, I guess time to crank up your machine at the blog and start flaming their email boxes too, and make sure to inform them who “I really am” since you guys have already “labeled” me on the internet in public- so I think its incumbent on the ones who tender slander to inform the Peacekeeping Institute- since they obviously didn’t know, that I’m just a racist and extremist- pro-Serb activist. You guys at the blog should teach those professors at the Peacekeeping Institute about credibility, academic resources, etc. etc. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your learned resources and techniques.
What’s the message ? Its not, don’t listen to what James Luko has to say-,it’s DON”T listen to him ! Muzzle him- divert his attention away from the substance of the discussion to keeping him busy to defend himself against ad hominem attacks and rants, and busy cleaning out his email boxes of the hate filled flames we through at him. Let’s do what we can to keep him quiet- let’s slander him and “discredit” him to the point where- no matter what- we create so much smoke about him- people will be bound to believe there is fire where there is smoke right. So, lets not keep the discussion civil, about the substance, the issue and definitions of genocide- let’s hurl personal attacks- slander, defamation, complete lies at this guy and we can make sure people don’t listen to him and keep him busy with that and thereby prevent him from continuing to speak up. We need to shut James Luko down and fast. This guy knows something let’s not give him an equal forum to speak, let’s push him down via flaming, slander and defamation and make sure that ONLY people who AGREE with us can speak without being slammed by our defamation and slander campaigns.
Good job Branko. You guys seem so frightened of me- so eager to get me to shut my mouth- to shut me down. You can’t do it by civilized rebuttal, so, your cohorts turn to slander and defamation and flaming email boxes, why do that if I’m a nobody and nothing and what I have to say is meaningless ? You mean, there is freedom of speech for you and yours, but not for me- unless I toe the party line.
And yes, I do blame your blogs for the flaming and hate filled emails, since its your blogs who are using terms which are slanderous and thereby encouraging those frail of mind to resort to hate filled emails and flaming.
I applaud Andy and James' willingness to debate "Branko" on his own terms, especially since this is a maliciously construed alias of the anonymous proprietor of the "Srebrenica Genocide Blog". That helps explain the ad hominem invective, the argument from false authority (obsessive quoting of ICTY) and all the talk about "discredited/unqualified/non-academic" character of everyone who disagrees. Yet "Branko" (i.e. SGB) never mentions what makes him qualified, academic or reputable.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2009-11-12 12:50:48
Branko,
I don't need a Ph.D. to know a load of crap when I see it. You can tell me that Srebrenica was like the Holocaust until you're blue in the face - I don't care if you've got an army of university professors and international judges backing you up either.
If I take your word for what happened in Srebrenica, that Bosnian-Serb troops executed 8,000 men and boys in 1995 (which I seriously doubt), but assuming that's true it means that about 1/5th of the population was killed. That is nothing at all like the Holocaust where, in countries like Poland and Estonia, 90% of the Jews, including the women and children, were killed -- millions of them systematically rounded-up and slaughtered by the Nazis. Nasir Oric and the 28th Infantry division were stationed in Srebrenica and they staged attacks from there (which you say were justified), but even so the Jews didn't have a military force. The Bosnian Muslims started a secessionist war against Yugoslavia, the Jews didn't do anything to provoke anyone, they were as peaceful as sheep. There are no parallels whatsoever that can be drawn between Srebrenica and the Holocaust. The Holocaust was genocide -- Srebrenica wasn't. By making comparisons between the two you're cheapening the Holocaust and exploiting it for your own purposes and that is morally wrong.
All you have is ad-hominem attacks. You don't attack my arguments, you attack my academic credentials.
The Tribunal has ruled that:
"The perpetrator’s genocidal intent will almost invariably encompass civilians, but that is not a legal requirement of the offence of genocide".
In Srebrenica the tribunal conceded that "a percentage of the bodies in the gravesites examined may have been of men killed in combat."
According to the Krstic appeals judgement "The main evidence underlying the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the VRS [Bosnian-Serb] forces intended to eliminate all the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica was the massacre by the VRS of all men of military age from that community."
According to the Tribunal, "The existence of a plan or policy is not a legal ingredient of the crime of genocide."
Here's another gem from the Krstic appeals judgement: "The [Krstic] Defence also argues that the record contains no statements by members of the VRS Main Staff indicating that the killing of the Bosnian Muslim men was motivated by genocidal intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica. The absence of such statements is not determinative.Where direct evidence of genocidal intent is absent, the intent may still be inferred ... the Trial Chamber treated the killing of the men of military age as evidence from which to infer that Radislav Krstic and some members of the VRS Main Staff had the requisite intent to destroy all the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica."
The finding of genocide in Srebrenica isn't based on any direct evidence of a genocidal plan because there isn't any. The finding of genocide in Srebrenica is based on an INFERENCE the Tribunal drew from the killing of what were mainly (but not all) military aged men in the context of a civil war. There are certainly more plausable inferences that one could draw than that the Serbs intended to kill all of the Bosnian-Muslims.
In order to prop-up its allegation that the Serbs intended to kill all of the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, even though they evacuated the women and children to safety, the Tribunal rules that "the offence of genocide does not require proof that the perpetrator chose the most efficient method to accomplish his objective of destroying the targeted part. Even where the method selected will not implement the perpetrator’s intent to the fullest, leaving that destruction incomplete, this ineffectiveness alone does not preclude a finding of genocidal intent."
I may not have a Ph.D. in international law, but I've got enough common sense to know that the Tribunal's definition of "genocide" isn't what most people understand the term to mean.
I wasn't on the ground, but I've noticed that if anybody who was on the ground disagrees with your vision of the Bosnian war that you resort to ad hominem attacks. You say that General Morillon was a drunk and that Mladic was his drinking buddy. You've engaged in what is obviously libel against James Luko. I'm sure you've got some evil thing up your sleeve to accuse general MacKenzie of since he's a "Srebrenica genocide denier". If I remember correctly, the Bosnian-Muslims falsely accused him of rape after he refused to carry water for their war propaganda.
You’re the one who is labelling people as “genocide deniers” and “Karadzic/Milosevic supporters”. Furthermore, the personal attacks on James and Andy worries me as you have not remained objective in this debate.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
![[link edited for length]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sarajevo_Grbavica.JPG){kind=link}