An internal memorandum found in the archives of the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague proves that the vast majority of Srebrenica massacre victims were military personnel and not civilians. by Andy Wilcoxson
(libertarian)
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The public has been wrongly led to believe that Bosnian-Serbs massacred 8,000 Bosnian-Muslim civilians in a vicious campaign of genocide in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in July of 1995, but documents found in the archives of the UN war crimes Tribunal in The Hague cast serious doubt on these allegations.
The Allegation
Writing for the New York Times, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Anthony Lewis told his readers that "The Bosnian Serb leaders were not on the scale of the Nazis, but the evil was the same. General Mladic presided over the slaughter of 8,000 civilian men and boys after his troops captured the U.N. safe haven' of Srebrenica." [1]
In an article published by the International Herald Tribune, Gareth Evans and James Lyon, the president and senior Balkan analyst of the International Crisis Group informed readers that "In mid-July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces commanded by Mladic conducted the organized slaughter of nearly 8,000 civilians and non-combatants around the Bosnian town of Srebrenica." [2]
CBS News reporter Bob Simon told viewers of the popular newsmagazine show 60 Minutes that "The shame of Srebrenica is not only that the Serbs murdered 8,000 civilians, but that the Dutch peacekeepers looked on as men were separated from women, husbands from wives, looked on as the genocide began." [3]
The London Mirror even reported that former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had apologized for what reporter Mark Dowdney called "the West's failure to stop the murder of 8,000 civilians at Srebrenica during the Bosnian war". Dowdney assured his readers that "the victims - unarmed Muslim men and boys - were butchered by Serb forces after they captured the small town of Srebrenica in 1995." [4]
The media aren't the only ones making this claim. In 2005 the UN High Commission on Refugees issued a report on Srebrenica which said, "Nearly 8,000 civilians were slaughtered in the worst atrocity in Europe since World War II. The International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague last year judged the action as genocide." [5] Also in 2005, the White House issued a statement which said, "On July 11th, we remember the tragic loss of lives in Srebrenica 10 years ago. The mass murder of nearly 8,000 men and boys was Europe's worst massacre of civilians since World War II, and a grim reminder that there are evil people who will kill the innocent without conscience or mercy." [6]
Comparing Srebrenica to the Holocaust
Proponents of the Srebrenica genocide theory often try to equate the Srebrenica massacre with the Holocaust. At best these analogies can be dismissed as feebleminded; at worst they're a cynical attempt to exploit the Holocaust.
The vast majority of Jews living in territories controlled by the Nazis were killed in the Holocaust, but in Srebrenica the vast majority of Bosnian Muslims survived the fall of the enclave to Bosnian-Serb forces. That difference alone ought to be enough to destroy any Srebrenica-to-Holocaust analogies, but the differences don't end there.
Unlike the Jews in the Holocaust, the Bosnian-Muslims were the aggressors in the war. The Bosnian-Muslims groomed paramilitary groups for years before the war started. They chose to use armed violence against Yugoslavia and the Bosnian-Serbs as a means to achieve their political and territorial ambitions. The fighting in and around Srebrenica, as well as every other battle that took place in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, was the direct consequence of their decision to go to war. If they hadn't started the war in the first place there never would have been a Srebrenica massacre or any other war crimes -- it's as simple as that.
The Hague Tribunal's verdict in the Nasir Oric trial confirms that in the years leading-up to the Srebrenica massacre, Bosnian-Muslim soldiers together with Muslim civilians from Srebrenica participated in the burning and looting of several Serbian villages around Srebrenica in a series of tit-for-tat battles with the Bosnian-Serbs, and that they physically mistreated, and in some cases killed, the Serbian prisoners they captured during the fighting.
There were no Jewish paramilitaries rampaging through Germany, burning villages, and killing people before the Holocaust started. So yet again the Srebrenica-to-Holocaust analogies fall flat. The Jews did not provoke the Nazis, whereas the same can not be said of the Bosnian-Muslims.
Less than two weeks before the July 1995 Srebrenica massacre, Muslims from the so-called "UN Safe Area" of Srebrenica attacked the Serbian village of Visnjica burning houses, killing livestock, and forcing Serbian civilians to flee for their lives. [7]
The Srebrenica massacre and the Holocaust are so thoroughly and completely different that no comparison whatsoever can be made between the two events. Regardless, this does not stop the proponents of the Srebrenica genocide theory from labeling their detractors "Srebrenica genocide deniers" as if Srebrenica genocide denial were the same thing as Holocaust denial. The proponents of the Srebrenica genocide theory would have you believe that the primary victims of the Bosnian war were the people who started it in the first place.
What Did The Bosnian-Serbs Do?
Nobody denies the fact that a crime was committed, former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic described what happened in Srebrenica as an "insane crime" [8] and former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic recently told the ICTY trial chamber, "I believe that for thousands of [Srebrenica victims] we can assume that people's hands were tied, and based on that we can assume that those people were executed." [9]
Bosnian-Serb forces killed thousands of Bosnian-Muslims from Srebrenica, including many civilians. However, the allegation that the victims were primarily civilians and that the killings constituted an act of genocide is absurd. The overwhelming majority of Srebrenica victims were military-aged men who were members of the Army of Bosnia Herzegovina (ABiH), as evidenced by their military service records.
Executing hostile civilians and enemy POWs is clearly a war crime. In Srebrenica the question is how many people were executed and why? The dispute about what happened in Srebrenica hinges on that question.
The Bosnian-Serbs and the Bosnian-Muslims tell two different stories about what happened in Srebrenica. The Bosnian-Muslims say the Serbs rounded up every man and young boy they could get their hands on and murdered them in cold blood. The Bosnian Serbs have never denied executing Bosnian-Muslim men whom they suspected of participating in attacks on Serbian villages, but they insist that the Bosnian-Muslims are exaggerating the scope of the crime and that most of the victims died in combat. According to a restricted UN document that was probably never meant to see the light of day, U.N. Military Observers (UNMOs) who were stationed in Srebrenica together with the Muslims when the Bosnian-Serbs attacked the enclave told their debriefers in New York that "the UNMOs were with the [Muslim] refugees for 24 hrs a day and knew nothing about the reports of the killing of men of military age. Single gunshots were heard but there was nothing to suggest they were from executions." [10]
Since everybody who was on the ground when this happened is telling a different story, the only recourse is to look at the forensic evidence and draw your own conclusions.
The Forensic Evidence
In 2005 the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague compiled a list of 7,661 persons (military and civilian) who went missing and are believed to have been killed when Srebrenica fell to Bosnian-Serb forces in July of 1995.
According to an internal memorandum written by the head of the demographic unit of the ICTY prosecutor's office, the majority of the persons identified as missing from Srebrenica by the ICTY prosecutor are Bosnian-Muslim military personnel. 5,371, or 70.1%, of the 7,661 persons identified by the ICTY prosecutor were known members of the ABiH whose military records have been examined by the Tribunal's researchers. [11]
The International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) has performed DNA analysis on thousands of corpses exhumed from gravesites in and around Srebrenica. According to the most recent statistics released by the ICTY, they have identified the mortal remains of 3,837 individuals from the ICTY prosecutor's list of Srebrenica victims.
Of the Srebrenica victims identified by the ICMP, 3,602 (93.9%) were males aged fifteen to sixty-five. 201 (5.2%) were men over the age of sixty-five. 9 (0.2%) were boys under the age of fourteen. 11 (0.3%) were women, and 14 (0.4%) were age or sex unknown. [12]
Based on the above statistics we can assume that approximately 88% of the identified victims were "military aged" men (i.e. men between the U.S. military's minimum enlistment age of 17 and the mandatory retirement age of 62).
Between 1996 and 2001 a team of investigators led by Australian forensic scientist Dean Manning was employed by the ICTY to exhume graves thought to be associated with the Srebrenica massacre. The team discovered 448 blindfolds and 423 ligatures among the bodies exhumed from the gravesites. [13] They determined that 1,785 individuals died of gunshot wounds, 169 died of probable or possible gunshot wounds, 67 died of Shrapnel wounds or blast injuries, 11 died of gunshot and blast injuries, 6 died of other causes (trauma, suffocation, etc.), and 1441 died of undetermined causes. Investigators also found shell casings among the bodies which indicates that some individuals must have been shot in or near the gravesite. [14] The shell casings were found in the same graves where the blindfolds and ligatures were found. [15]
Live ammunition was also found in the graves, but the Tribunal's investigators didn't bother to collect it. [16] Live ammunition found in the possession of the victims may be an indicator that some of them had been armed, but since no investigation was done concerning the live ammunition we'll never know.
Interpreting the Facts
Nobody really knows how many people from Srebrenica were executed, how many died in combat, and how many were collateral damage, but we do know that, contrary to what we've been told, most of the victims were military personnel and not civilians.
The Hague Tribunal has acknowledged that "a percentage of the bodies in the gravesites examined may have been of men killed in combat," [17] but it none the less it made a finding that "following the take-over of Srebrenica, Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men. The total number is likely to be within the range of 7,000 - 8,000 men." [18]
None of the forensic evidence cited by the ICTY judgment even begins to support its conclusion that between 7,000 and 8,000 men were executed. Forensic investigators had only exhumed 2,028 bodies when the judgment was handed down. [19] The judges could not have known how the remaining 5,000 to 6,000 persons whose remains had not been found, and for whom no post-mortem forensic investigation had been done, had died or even if they were all dead at all.
The forensic evidence clearly indicates that a portion of the victims were executed, but it by no means proves that all or even most of them were executed.
Defining Genocide
Genocide is a word with a definition. Just because a crime was committed in Srebrenica, it doesn't mean that the crime of genocide was committed.
According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
In order for genocide to take place the perpetrator must have the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
The crime of genocide hinges on the intent of the perpetrator. History is loaded with examples of military campaigns with much higher military and civilian death tolls than anything seen in Srebrenica, where nobody alleges genocide (Operation Meetinghouse, the Tet Offensive, the Allied bombing of Dresden, etc...).
When evaluating the allegation of genocide in Srebrenica one must determine whether the Bosnian Serb forces intended to destroy the Bosnian Muslim ethno-religious group as such, or whether their intent was to wipe-out enemy resistance in the region. It's a simple matter. If their target was the enemy fighting force, and not the ethno-religious group itself, they're not guilty of genocide.
The Hague Tribunal Weighs In
Although it seems obvious that the main target of the massacre was the military because the overwhelming majority of victims were military aged men for whom military service records exist, the ICTY none-the-less ruled during the Krstic trial that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide, but the reasoning behind that conclusion is hopelessly weak.
According to the Tribunal, "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 [Bosnian Serb Army] Main Staff had the requisite intent to destroy all the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica." [20] 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 (sic) men of military age from that community." [21]
The Tribunal conceded that Krstic's defense was correct in arguing 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." Yet they dismissed that argument by ruling that "The absence of such statements is not determinative. Where direct evidence of genocidal intent is absent, the intent may still be inferred." [22]
The Tribunal's finding of genocide in Srebrenica isn't based on hard evidence of a genocidal Serbian plan because no such evidence exists. According to the Tribunal, "The existence of a plan or policy is not a legal ingredient of the crime of genocide." [23]
The Tribunal's finding of genocide in Srebrenica is based on an inference they drew from the killing of military aged men in a war zone, most of whom were members of the military as evidenced by their military records. According to the Tribunal it's irrelevant whether the victims are military or civilians. In their judgment, "The perpetrator's genocidal intent will almost invariably encompass civilians, but that is not a legal requirement of the offence of genocide." [24]
The Tribunal dismisses the fact that the Bosnian Serb Army transported the Bosnian-Muslim women and children from Srebrenica to safety 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." [25]
If one uses the definition of "genocide" concocted by the Tribunal for Srebrenica one could argue that genocide is a feature of practically every military conflict. When one reads the Tribunal's verdict it is obvious that they are performing mental gymnastics in order to warp the definition of "genocide" to fit their purposes. They entered a finding of genocide because that was the finding they wanted to make, not because it was where the evidence led them.
What happened in Srebrenica does not remotely resemble "genocide" as the term is understood by most people. It's a huge stretch to argue that killing enemy soldiers and military aged men in the context of a three-year-old civil war that had victims on both sides is an act of "genocide" comparable to the wholesale slaughters of civilians that have characterized the Holocaust and every other genocide you could name.
In Srebrenica at least 80% of the Bosnian-Muslim population survived the fall of the town to Bosnian-Serb troops and the vast majority of the dead were military personnel, compare that to the Holocaust where in places like Poland and Estonia over 90% of the Jews were killed by the Nazis, or to Rwanda where nearly 75% of the Tutsi population was killed by Hutu fighters in 1994. What happened in Srebrenica is not even remotely similar.
What happened in Srebrenica was a war crime far more comparable to the 2001 Dasht-i-Leili massacre in Afghanistan than it is to anything that happened during the Holocaust.
The victims of the Srebrenica massacre fall into three categories: people who were captured and executed, belligerents who were killed in combat, and non-combatants who got caught in the cross-fire. We don't know how many victims fall into each category because a proper post-mortem forensic examination has not been done for the vast majority of victims.
In 2001 the ICTY stopped its forensic investigations. It should be noted that in ten out of the twenty-six gravesites they did examine, no blindfolds, ligatures, or shell casings were found among the bodies. It would appear that not every grave contained execution victims. It is possible that the Tribunal only looked in the graves where they thought there was a high likelihood that they were going to find evidence of executions and that they stopped investigating once those graves had been checked.
Thousands of bodies have been and continue to be exhumed from graves in the areas around Srebrenica. The International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) is doing DNA analysis to determine the identity of the victims, but they're doing absolutely nothing to determine how any of them died, which makes it impossible to say how many of them were victims of a war crime and how many were simply victims of the war or belligerents killed in combat.
It's irresponsible to simply assume that thousands of people were executed without doing a proper investigation to determine the cause of death when there are so many other ways that people could have been killed in a war zone.
Given that the proponents of the Srebrenica genocide theory are lying about the identity of the victims by making them all out to be civilians when most of them were military personnel, it certainly isn't inconceivable that they're also lying about the circumstances of their death by saying they were all executed when many of them could have been belligerents killed in combat or collateral damage.
The truth about what happened in Srebrenica has not been established. The Hague Tribunal has been useful in so far as it has made evidence available to the public, but its biased and malicious interpretation of the evidence has been extremely unhelpful.
By affixing the "genocide" label to Srebrenica the Tribunal has undermined the will to do any further investigation into the cause of death of the bodies still being exhumed. Every corpse that is exhumed is assumed to have been executed by the Bosnian-Serbs during the so-called "genocide" even though there is a distinct possibility that they weren't.
The Hague Tribunal entered a finding of "genocide" in Srebrenica without sufficient evidence to back it up. Something happened in Srebrenica, but there's certainly no evidence to suggest that it was genocide. Unfortunately we'll probably never know the whole truth because the Tribunal has effectively killed the will to do any further investigation, but maybe that was the plan all along.
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.
The author not only lost all of his credibility when he said that Bosnian Muslims started the war, and that their aim was war when declaring independence (ignoring the fact that it was a peaceful act of independence which was preceded by the bosnian serb leader Karadzic saying if bosnian muslims declared independence, they'd "disappear"), but he proved beyond a reasonable doubt to even be able to comprehend simple facts. Do us all a favor and do not write anymore.
It is far more instructive to talk to the Kosovars who fled and immigrated to the US than to simply compare he-said-she-said documents. The Serbs have proven themselves time and time again to be a cruel, fascist, violent culture...far more so than the Muslims in the Balkan region.
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2010-03-04 13:39:18
Unknown,
How about quoting what Karadzic said in context? In the remarks you're referring to he said: "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."
Karadzic didn't say they'd disappear if they tried to peacefully negotiate independence from Yugoslavia, he said they'd disappear if they started a war, and unfortunately that's exactly what they did.
If the Muslim leader Izetbegovic hadn't renegged on the Cutileiro peace plan in 1992, Bosnia would have gotten its independence peacefully and there wouldn't have been a war.
On February 7, 1991 Izetbegovic stood in front of the Bosnian parliament and said point blank that he was prepared to "sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina."
In 1998, 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. In 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."
The Patriotic League was officially established on June 10, 1991, and by March of 1992 the Patriotic League had a force of 80,000 armed Muslims in Bosnia. All of this was totally illegal. The JNA was the only lawful armed force in Yugoslavia and the Izetbegovic regime did not announce Bosnia's secession from Yugoslavia until April 1992.
You can pretend like the Muslims didn't start the war and that they were being peaceful, but you look pretty stupid saying that when there a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Izetbegovic came right out and said months before the war started that he was willing to start a war to acheive independence and then he organizes tens of thousands of Muslims into paramilitary groups BEFORE the war starts.
People like Thom amaze me. They call the Serbs fascists when they raised the first rebellion against the Nazis in Europe, and the Bosnian-Muslims established the Nazi S.S. division Handzar and Izetbegovic was personally convicted and sent to prison in 1946 for collaborating with the Gestapo during World War II.
Why do you think the Iranian government provided the Izetbegovic regime with 2/3rds of its military hardware? Why do you think Izetbegovic was seen by two Western reporters (Eve-Ann Prentice of the London Times and Renate Flottau of Der Spiegel) in the company of Osama bin Laden? Why do you think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two of the 9/11 hijackers fought for Izetbegovic's regime in Bosnia?
It's simple. Izetbegovic was an Islamic fundamentalist. He was not the democratic leader striving for a peaceful multi-ethnic Bosnia that he would have people in the West believing he was.
In his book entitled "The Islamic Declaration", Izetbegovic wrote that the establishment of an Islamic order was his "incontrovertible and invincible aim" and that "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."
The fact that the Bosnian-Muslims were responsible for the war should be obvious to anybody with a brain. They started the war and they are responsible for everything that happened. Every last drop of blood is on their hands. They have nobody but themselves to blame for all of the people who died in Srebrenica and everywhere else in Bosnia.
Irrefutable Proof ICTY Is Corrupt Court/Irrefutable Proof the Hague Court Cannot Legitimately Prosecute Karadzic Case
http://picasaweb.google.com/lpcyusa (The Documentary Secret United Nations ICC Meeting Papers Scanned Images)
This legal technicality indicates the Hague must dismiss charges against Dr Karadzic and others awaiting trials in the Hague jail; like it or not.
Unfortunately for the Signatures Of the Rome Statute United Nations member states instituting the ICC & ICTY housed at the Hague, insofar as the, Radovan Karadzic, as with the other Hague cases awaiting trial there, I personally witnessed these United Nations member states openly speaking about trading judicial appointments and verdicts for financial funding when I attended the 2001 ICC Preparatory Meetings at the UN in Manhattan making the iCTY and ICC morally incapable trying Radovan Karazdic and others.
I witnessed with my own eyes and ears when attending the 2001 Preparatory Meetings to establish an newly emergent International Criminal Court, the exact caliber of criminal corruption running so very deeply at the Hague, that it was a perfectly viable topic of legitimate conversation in those meetings I attended to debate trading verdicts AND judicial appointments, for monetary funding.
Jilly wrote:*The rep from Spain became distraught and when her country’s proposal was not taken to well by the chair of the meeting , then Spain argued in a particularly loud and noticably strongly vocal manner, “Spain (my country) strongly believes if we contribute most financial support to the Hague’s highest court, that ought to give us and other countries feeding it financially MORE direct power over its decisions.”
((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((((( Instead of censoring the country representative from Spain for even bringing up this unjust, illegal and unfair judicial idea of bribery for international judicial verdicts and judicial appointments, all country representatives present in the meeting that day all treated the Spain proposition as a ”totally legitimate topic” discussed and debated it between each other for some time. I was quite shocked! The idea was "let's discuss it." "It's a great topic to discuss."
Some countries agreed with Spain’s propositions while others did not. The point here is, bribery for judicial verdicts and judicial appointments was treated as a totally legitimate topic instead of an illegitimate toic which it is in the meeting that I attended in 2001 that day to establish the ground work for a newly emergent international criminal court.))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
In particular., since "Spain" was so overtly unafraid in bringing up this topic of trading financial funding the ICC for influence over its future judicial appointments and verdicts in front of every other UN member state present that day at the UN, "Spain" must have already known by previous experience the topic of bribery was "socially acceptable" for conversation that day. They must have previously spoke about bribing the ICTY and ICC before in meetings; this is my take an international sociological honor student.
SPAIN's diplomatic gesture of international justice insofar as, Serbia, in all of this is, disgusting morally!
SPAIN HAS TAUGHT THE WORLD THE TRUE DEFINITION OF AN "INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT."
I remind everyone, when I attended those ICC Preparatory Meetings in 2001, witnessing first hand the country plenipotentiary representatives present with me discussing so openly, trading judicial funding of a new international criminal court, for its direct judicial appointments and judicial verdicts, those same state powers were
concurrently,
those same countries and people were already simultaneously, funding the already established ICTY which was issuing at that time, arrest warrants for Bosnian Serbs under false primary diplomatic pretenses.
The ICTY and ICC is just where it should be for once. Cornered and backed into and an international wall, scared like a corned animal (and I bet it reacts in the same way a rabid cornered animal does too in such circumstances). (ICTY associates)
http://picasaweb.google.com/lpcyusa/ViewMyHagueInternationalCriminalCourtPreparat oryDocumentsFromThe2001UnitedNations# (Evidence Against the ICTY)
http://picasaweb.google.com/lpcyusa/DuringTheTrialOfRamushHaradinajIn2006TheHag ueWarCrimesTribunalForTheFormerYugoslavi# (Documents: Hague war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has destroyed all material evidence about the monstrous KLA Albanian/KLA organ trade in Kosovo)
I believe strongly that ICYU assocaites murdered former Serb President, Slobodan Milosevic, tried to murder me, as well and other Serbs prisoners and presently places , Doctor Radovan Karadzic’s life in direct danger as well as Ratko Mladic’s life in danger should he be brought there.
The ICTY has no other choice than to halt all further court proceedings against, Doctor Radovan Karadzic, and others there both serving sentences and awaiting trials. Miss JIll Louise Starr (The UN Security Council has no choice but to act on this now).
I accuse the Hague ICTY war crimes tribunal of attempted assassination on my life and
others, contempt of court and obstruction of international justice and "international
witness tampering" in complicity with Richard Holbrook and Bill Clinton (Former US
President of the USA) as well as political players in Spain and the Netherlands .
I represented the state interests' of the Former Yugoslavia, in Darko Trifunovic’s absence in those meetings and I am proud to undertake this effort on Serbia’s behalf.
We’ve all become closely acquainted with the concepts of impunity, international law, social justice, and both licit and illicit equity within the framework of judiciary constructs.
And as such, I’ve been sitting all alone here in my room for seemingly endless years, merely contemplating these and other questions crucially important to the conceptual role of international criminal justice:
1) Many news media presenters argue certain leaders of political parties and organized crime syndications are “arrogant,” for believing they themselves are above the rule of law.
However, the award for winning the Olympic Gold Metal of being ‘Mother of All Arrogance’ has just be captured by Hague’s Highest Legal Entity, the newly constructed International Criminal Court.
2) This entity shamelessly and explicity proclaims its own impunity from international justice while increasing its push moving forward in prosecuting others for identical crimes itself commits. It flaunts its diplomatic immunity as if it were the President of the most powerful country on earth. Claiming to rival the powers of the Queen of England and the Holy See.
As totally immersed and interesting as I found the topics, the African ambassador seated found boring. I say this owing to noticing during the entire meeting he was merely doodling nonsensical pictures on some legal pad. I think that no one took more notes that day than me. I was especially interested in the interstate bickering about financing the international criminal court should and when it came about. Spain was particularly forceful in vocalizing its opinion that the countries giving the most monetary contributions to the court itself ought have more power over both its staffing and its innocent and guilty verdicts as well as judges appointed. My suspicions’ equally shared by scholars such as Noam Chomsky and former attorney general, Ramsey Clark were now fully justifiably confirmed. The court itself was a great travesty of justice and I was actually witnessing quarrels between countries insofar as controlling the courts judges and verdicts based on financial contributions rather than on law and true international justice.
Several seasons went by and now it was spring 2001. Darko and his wife Bojana had time off which they spent visiting friends and family in Serbia for about two weeks. Because of this Darko was unable to function in full diplomatic capacity. In spring 2001 there was a preparatory commission meeting of plenipotentiaries to establish an international criminal court at the United Nations in New York City. Topics of the meeting included but were not limited to defining interstate acts of aggression, court financing etc.. Darko asked me if I would sit in for him at the meeting taking as many notes possible owing to the Law Projects Center possessing United Nations accreditation as a NGO (non governmental organization) with full observer status at the United Nations; I acceded.
Darko faxed me all necessary paperwork enabling my application attendance at this crucial meeting; I filled out the necessary forms and faxed them to the appropriate United Nations office for approval. It was an extremely exciting time for me. My close friend and colleague, Arnold Stark (History professor and Columbian University PhD) drove me into Manhattan walking me through the United Nations main entrance and security the day of attendance. Professor Stark himself was an old foreign service man from way back in the day and he told me I never looked as professionally sharp as I did on that day; I wore a navy blue pin striped suit. I must admit, I looked good.
Only post attending that day did I truly understand the total lapse of security existing then at the United Nations in New York City. I say this owing to the social fact that the Law Projects Center was indeed registered as an United nations accredited NGO it is true. However, closed meetings of this sort meant attendance was strictly limited to head ambassadors of valid United Nations member state missions and non governmental organizations possessing observer status were not allowed.
Unto present, I’ve yet understood whereby I gained entrance into this privy closed meeting consisting of only United Nations ambassadors, but I did. Walking to the basement floor of the United Nations building that day, I merely wore a visitors badge given to me at the front desk in no manner indicating that I was an ambassador of a United Nations mission; least of all the Bosnia mission as required for entrance. Totally unaware I didn’t possess necessary credentials to enter the meeting, I walked confidently towards the entrance door and past the guard stationed outside it. The guard never bothering to examine the type of badge I wore around my neck simply said “good day Madame” and urged me into the meeting; it was just about time to begin.
I immediately sensed something wrong once through the door past the guard. First, I was uncertain where to sit. Everyone else had a sign in front of their seat stating their country of origin. The Israeli ambassador sat in front of the Israel sign, the Spanish lady sat in front of the seat indicating she represented, Spain etc..
I looked fervently around the room seeing no seats indicating seats for United Nations observers anywhere. The last thing I wanted to do was to embarrass myself by taking the seat of an important ambassador; I noticed a couple of men seeming from some African state grabbing some meeting paperwork nearby so I inquired of them. I told them I was a newbie and inquired where to sit and what I should do. With heavy African accents one of them said, “just grab a bunch of these papers, sit there and look like you are busy,” so I did. In fact, I grabbed as many extra copies as I could without looking conspicuous when noticing another peculiarity.
The meeting papers indicated they were for restricted for the eyes of state mission heads’ only (chief ambassadors of countries) and allowing other persons and/or United Nations employees to view them was a punishable offense. Uncertain what to do, and with the meeting beginning, I merely sat there stunned. My seat and the one the African gentleman next to me took seemed extras because they neglected having any indication regarding country origin in front of them on the table; I felt safe.
As totally immersed and interesting as I found the topics, the African ambassador seated found boring. I say this owing to noticing during the entire meeting he was merely doodling nonsensical pictures on some legal pad. I think that no one took more notes that day than me. I was especially interested in the interstate bickering about financing the international criminal court should and when it came about. Spain was particularly forceful in vocalizing its opinion that the countries giving the most monetary contributions to the court itself ought have more power over both its staffing and its innocent and guilty verdicts as well as judges appointed. My suspicions’ equally shared by scholars such as Noam Chomsky and former attorney general, Ramsey Clark were now fully justifiably confirmed. The court itself was a great travesty of justice and I was actually witnessing quarrels between countries insofar as controlling the courts judges and verdicts based on financial contributions rather than on law and true international justice.
The most shocking point of the meeting for me was when the Israeli ambassador admitted openly to the other attendees that Israel was indifferent to war crimes, crimes against humanity and would in no manner support any international structure limiting its’ ability for practicing war and peace against any other state and/or party it considered a threat to its national interest.
The ambassador representing the United States that day strongly and equally explicitly backed the Israeli position making clear American attendance was more for information gathering purposes and show than true concern for international law, world peace and social justice. When the meeting ended I slipped quickly out the front entrance of the United Nations; notes and papers in hand; I would read them in detail later that evening. When I attended these Preparatory Meetings at the end, the First Ambassador to the Bosnian Mission in NYC (The Serbian Doctor with glasses) came in but only stayed a short while as my witness to my being there.
It must have amazed Darko upon returning from Serbia I actually gained entrance to the ICC preparatory closed meeting because within a week he invited me to the city to attend another important meeting at the United Nations comprised of diplomats from some very selective and prestigious NATO member states. I don’t recall the date but by his return fully I understood the definition of a closed meeting. Upon approaching the meeting door I became at once cognizant the meeting stated “closed meeting,” on the door. I did my best to point this fact out to Darko who told me to go in with him anyway; we did. Darko obviously thought because I gained entrance to the ICC meeting I ought not have in his absence, perhaps if I were with him, he covertly could gain access this closed NATO meeting; no dice. Upon entering the room, immediately some important looking man called him over and diplomatically informed him that “Serbia was not invited.” Darko pointed to me explaining that he was with the American lady but he was asked politely to leave; I followed him out the door embarrassed.
The following year was mundane. Filled with activities like shuttling back and forth to FDU for graduate school, fund raising for the Law Projects Center and co-authoring two book with Darko. The fateful day of 9/11 and the attacks by Al-Qaeda on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City changed my venue forever. Post 9/11 Darko became a man on a personal mission seemingly unrelated to the Bosnian mission itself.
He told me it was the utmost importance to publicize the alleged fact that the head ambassador of the Bosnian mission was in his estimation involved with Al-Qaeda.
Darko had a seemingly ton of secret documentary evidence emanating from the ministry of internal affairs in Belgrade and Bosnia seeming true bolstering his allegations in my eyes then.
Asking me to fervently work on editing a book on which topic was meant for exposing the head ambassador of the Bosnian mission at that time; I acceded. The publication was later published by the Repubika Srpska information agency in Bosnia. The Serbian government in the Republika Srpska in Bosnia then was seriously pressing Darko for a fast publication so we stayed up many nights over his apartment in Forest Hills, New York working to do so. The book was entitled, ”The Bosnia Model of Al-Qaeda Terrorism. It can probably still be found and read online. Last time I checked it was posted on the website: http://www.analyst-network.com/profile.php?user_id=240.
Darko always told me I possessed full rights to this and other publications we worked on together. Although I edited and co-authoring the Al-Qaeda work, a few years back I noticed Darko removed my name on the inner front cover page as editor replacing it with the name of a Serbian editor. When questioned about it Darko told me he kept my name from being published because of the death threats and dangers to my life that he himself encountered because of its publication. I do vividly remember Darko receiving a great many death threats and threats towards his wife at the time, Bojana.
Andy Wilcoxson, you are misinterpreting the facts. For example, you quote from Naser Oric judgment that Bosniaks attacked Serb villages, but you hide the fact that the same judgment also states the following:
"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."
You're very selective in your sources and you misinterpret the facts so you can prove your preconceived conclusions. I don't think you are a bad guy, I just know that you are uneducated person who has no better things to do but to distort the truth.
I will be publishing another article as a response to your lies tommorow. In fact, I already wrote it and I scheduled it to automatically publish tommorow at 9:00 AM PST.
PS: Just for the record, I have NOT one, but two university degrees from Harvard. You have none, and your insults and spam messages that you constantly post on my blog are regularly rejected. I did, however, respond to your allegations regarding Radovan Karadzic at the following link (in comments):
Posted By: Andy Wilcoxson
Date: 2010-03-08 14:07:55
Blog Admin, First of all, I didn't ask where you went to school. I don't care. Secondly, I haven't been posting anything on your blog. If somebody is insulting you and spamming you there's nothing I can do about it.
The judgement in the Oric trial contains exactly what I said it contains. It enumerates Serbs who were captured, beaten, and in some cases killed by Muslims while being held prisoner in the Srebrenica police station and at the Srebrenica municipal building. It also lists numerous Serbian towns and villages that were subjected to wanton destruction not justified by military necessity at the hands of Bosnian-Muslim soldiers and civilians. If anybody cares to look, there is a link to the summary of the judgement in this article and it lists the Serbs who were tortured and killed and the villages that were destroyed.
You are correct that the judgment also says Serbs attacked Muslims and even committed crimes against Muslims, and that this may have provoked some of the Muslim crimes against the Serbs. I don't deny that. Although I would urge you to adopt a consistant position. If Serbian crimes excuse or mitigate Muslim crimes, then Muslim crimes must excuse or mitigate subsequent Serbian crimes. You can't have it both ways where Serb crimes are viewed in a vaccuum and Muslim crimes are viewed in the context of the war. You need to look at everything through the same prisim.
In the Karadzic status hearing on February 15th the defense and the prosecution agreed on four key points with regard to Srebrenica: 1) The Srebrenica "safe area" was not demilitarised. 2) ABiH forces in the Srebrenica enclave launched attacks from inside the enclave. 3) arms were smuggled into the enclave. And 4) the ABiH forces in the Srebrenica enclave were legitimate military targets.
However, as Judge Kwon explained during the hearing, "it is one thing that there's a legitimate cause in waging a war, but it's totally a separate matter how it is waged. So in this regard, Mr. Karadzic, I would like to remind you that the purpose of this trial is to judge whether you are guilty of the charges as alleged in the indictment. And this is not an opportunity for you to produce a white book of all the events that took place at the time."
I don't agree with Judge Kwon. I think it is important to understand the context in which things happen. I think Karadzic should be afforded the same treatment as Oric received. If the events that let-up to the crimes in the Oric indictment were relevant in that trial, then the events that led up to the crimes alleged in the Karadzic indictment should be relevant in his trial.
I've never posted or even attempted to post anything on their blog, yet they're over there claiming to refute comments that they say I made on their blog. Apparently when their blog administrator came here and said, "I will be publishing another article as a response to your lies tommorow." he didn't mean he was going to refute anything I've written here, what he is trying to do is discredit me by refuting comments that I never made about some transcripts of Radovan Karadzic's telephone conversations.
I'd be surprised if that hysterical lunatic really has two degrees from Harvard University -- if he does it's a pathetic commentary on Harvard's graduates.
Harvard graduate or not, he's a prime example of the kind of people who promote the theory of Srebrenica genocide. He hasn't said a word to refute anything I've said here, so he attempts to discredit me by attributing things that I never said to me and refuting that instead. It's sad how pathetic he is because he doesn't even do a good job of refuting what the "Andy Wilcoxson" in his immagination accused him of doing -- namely lying about Karadzic's statements.
Just for the record, since I have been invited to refute their claims, I don't accept the claims Srebrenica Genocide Blog makes about the significance of Karadzic's conversations in their blog. Who cares if he shot off his mouth in a conversation with his brother on October 15, 1991? Only an idiot would construe that as an expression of genocidal intent, and I'll tell you why.
On October 15, 1991 Karadzic had every right to be angry with the Muslims. It was precisely on October 15, 1991 that the Muslims set Bosnia on an unavoidable path to war. It was on that very day that they that they illegally passed the so-called "memorandum on the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina" in the parliament.
At 3:00 in the morning, while the parliament was in recess, the Muslims illegally "reconveined" the parliament and in the absense of the parliament speaker (the only one with the legal power to conveine parliament) and in the absense of all the Serbian MP's they passed a resolution on Bosnia's secession from Yugoslavia. That was totally illegal.
For the benefit of people who don't know, Bosnia was part of Yugoslavia in 1991. The war broke-out in 1992 because the Bosnian-Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia, and the Bosnian-Muslims and Bosnian-Croats wanted (for different reasons) to secede from Yugoslavia. That's what this whole thing was about.
There are two ways to resolve territorial disputes: by legal and diplomatic means, or by force. By circumventing the law, the Muslims made force the only option, and the fact that they'd been setting-up paramilitary groups since at least the summer of 1990 tells me that their intention was always to go to war in order to take the territory they wanted by force regardless of what the Serbs, the Yugosav authorities, or anybody else in Bosnia might think.
Who cares if Karadzic was blowing off some steam with his brother? It was ultimately just talk anyway. He didn't actually go out and have Izetbegovic killed a few hours after the war started (although I wouldn't have blamed him if he did).
In Karadzic's conversation with Momo (October 13, 1991) he says he is preparing for war because he knows the Muslims are preparing for war. He also says, "we know what is going to happen here, that has nothing to do with Karadzic's or anyone else's decision, we know exactly what is going to happen ... in just a couple of days, Sarajevo will be gone and there will be 500,000 dead, in one month the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be annihilated, the number of Serbs will be reduced and Croats will be the only ones to profit because they will keep their municipalities...".
Again, he's lamenting what would happen if a war broke out. He's not expressing some kind of genocidal intent. If he were talking about "his plans" why would he want the number of Serbs to be reduced and for the Croats to profit?
Again, just like the conversation with his brother, this was just idle talk. Thankfully, nowhere near 500,000 people died in the Bosnian war. The death toll was only about a fifth of that, and Serbs constituted about a third of the victims.
I for one would love to see all of Alija Izetbegovic's telephone conversations. I'd be interested to know what he said to the people in Iran who were arming his military. I think it would be very interesting to see what the leaders of all three sides were saying.
![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/delicious.png")
Delicious![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/digg.png")
Digg![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/facebook.png")
Facebook![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/reddit.png")
Reddit![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/stumble-upon.png")
Stumble Upon![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/technoratipng.png")
Technorati![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/mixx.png")
Mixx![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/sphinn.gif")
Sphinn![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/twitter.gif")
Twitter![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/sphere.png")
SphereIt![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/propeller.gif")
Propeller![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/google.gif")
Gmarks![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/newsvine.gif")
Newsvine![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/yahoo.gif")
Yahoo! My Web![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/livejournal.gif")
Live Journal![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/blinklist.gif")
Blinklist![""]("http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/css-img/unread.gif")
E-mail![""]("http://badge.facebook.com/badge/1324075844.876.1175363375.png"){kind=icon}
![""]("http://static.snapfish.com/MD5=ba58a2dd92ab23fa6a7c06b6d8b7a5e2/default/images/spacer.gif"){kind=spacer}
_text_
Several seasons went by and now it was spring 2001. Darko and his wife Bojana had time off which they spent visiting friends and family in Serbia for about two weeks. Because of this Darko was unable to function in full diplomatic capacity. In spring 2001 there was a preparatory commission meeting of plenipotentiaries to establish an international criminal court at the United Nations in New York City. Topics of the meeting included but were not limited to defining interstate acts of aggression, court financing etc.. Darko asked me if I would sit in for him at the meeting taking as many notes possible owing to the Law Projects Center possessing United Nations accreditation as a NGO (non governmental organization) with full observer status at the United Nations; I acceded.
Darko faxed me all necessary paperwork enabling my application attendance at this crucial meeting; I filled out the necessary forms and faxed them to the appropriate United Nations office for approval. It was an extremely exciting time for me. My close friend and colleague, Arnold Stark (History professor and Columbian University PhD) drove me into Manhattan walking me through the United Nations main entrance and security the day of attendance. Professor Stark himself was an old foreign service man from way back in the day and he told me I never looked as professionally sharp as I did on that day; I wore a navy blue pin striped suit. I must admit, I looked good.
Only post attending that day did I truly understand the total lapse of security existing then at the United Nations in New York City. I say this owing to the social fact that the Law Projects Center was indeed registered as an United nations accredited NGO it is true. However, closed meetings of this sort meant attendance was strictly limited to head ambassadors of valid United Nations member state missions and non governmental organizations possessing observer status were not allowed.
Unto present, I’ve yet understood whereby I gained entrance into this privy closed meeting consisting of only United Nations ambassadors, but I did. Walking to the basement floor of the United Nations building that day, I merely wore a visitors badge given to me at the front desk in no manner indicating that I was an ambassador of a United Nations mission; least of all the Bosnia mission as required for entrance. Totally unaware I didn’t possess necessary credentials to enter the meeting, I walked confidently towards the entrance door and past the guard stationed outside it. The guard never bothering to examine the type of badge I wore around my neck simply said “good day Madame” and urged me into the meeting; it was just about time to begin.
I immediately sensed something wrong once through the door past the guard. First, I was uncertain where to sit. Everyone else had a sign in front of their seat stating their country of origin. The Israeli ambassador sat in front of the Israel sign, the Spanish lady sat in front of the seat indicating she represented, Spain etc..
I looked fervently around the room seeing no seats indicating seats for United Nations observers anywhere. The last thing I wanted to do was to embarrass myself by taking the seat of an important ambassador; I noticed a couple of men seeming from some African state grabbing some meeting paperwork nearby so I inquired of them.
I told them I was a newbie and inquired where to sit and what I should do. With heavy African accents one of them said, “just grab a bunch of these papers, sit there and look like you are busy,” so I did. In fact, I grabbed as many extra copies as I could without looking conspicuous when noticing another peculiarity.
The meeting papers indicated they were for restricted for the eyes of state mission heads’ only (chief ambassadors of countries) and allowing other persons and/or United Nations employees to view them was a punishable offense. Uncertain what to do, and with the meeting beginning, I merely sat there stunned. My seat and the one the African gentleman next to me took seemed extras because they neglected having any indication regarding country origin in front of them on the table; I felt safe.
As totally immersed and interesting as I found the topics, the African ambassador seated found boring. I say this owing to noticing during the entire meeting he was merely doodling nonsensical pictures on some legal pad. I think that no one took more notes that day than me. I was especially interested in the interstate bickering about financing the international criminal court should and when it came about. Spain was particularly forceful in vocalizing its opinion that the countries giving the most monetary contributions to the court itself ought have more power over both its staffing and its innocent and guilty verdicts as well as judges appointed. My suspicions’ equally shared by scholars such as Noam Chomsky and former attorney general, Ramsey Clark were now fully justifiably confirmed. The court itself was a great travesty of justice and I was actually witnessing quarrels between countries insofar as controlling the courts judges and verdicts based on financial contributions rather than on law and true international justice.
The most shocking point of the meeting for me was when the Israeli ambassador admitted openly to the other attendees that Israel was indifferent to war crimes, crimes against humanity and would in no manner support any international structure limiting its’ ability for practicing war and peace against any other state and/or party it considered a threat to its national interest.
The ambassador representing the United States that day strongly and equally explicitly backed the Israeli position making clear American attendance was more for information gathering purposes and show than true concern for international law, world peace and social justice. When the meeting ended I slipped quickly out the front entrance of the United Nations; notes and papers in hand; I would read them in detail later that evening. When I attended these Preparatory Meetings at the end, the First Ambassador to the Bosnian Mission in NYC (The Serbian Doctor with glasses) came in but only stayed a short while as my witness to my being there.
It must have amazed Darko upon returning from Serbia I actually gained entrance to the ICC preparatory closed meeting because within a week he invited me to the city to attend another important meeting at the United Nations comprised of diplomats from some very selective and prestigious NATO member states. I don’t recall the date but by his return fully I understood the definition of a closed meeting. Upon approaching the meeting door I became at once cognizant the meeting stated “closed meeting,” on the door. I did my best to point this fact out to Darko who told me to go in with him anyway; we did. Darko obviously thought because I gained entrance to the ICC meeting I ought not have in his absence, perhaps if I were with him, he covertly could gain access this closed NATO meeting; no dice. Upon entering the room, immediately some important looking man called him over and diplomatically informed him that “Serbia was not invited.” Darko pointed to me explaining that he was with the American lady but he was asked politely to leave; I followed him out the door embarrassed.
The following year was mundane. Filled with activities like shuttling back and forth to FDU for graduate school, fund raising for the Law Projects Center and co-authoring two book with Darko. The fateful day of 9/11 and the attacks by Al-Qaeda on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City changed my venue forever.
Post 9/11 Darko became a man on a personal mission seemingly unrelated to the Bosnian mission itself.
He told me it was the utmost importance to publicize the alleged fact that the head ambassador of the Bosnian mission was in his estimation involved with Al-Qaeda.
Darko had a seemingly ton of secret documentary evidence emanating from the ministry of internal affairs in Belgrade and Bosnia seeming true bolstering his allegations in my eyes then.
Asking me to fervently work on editing a book on which topic was meant for exposing the head ambassador of the Bosnian mission at that time; I acceded. The publication was later published by the Repubika Srpska information agency in Bosnia. The Serbian government in the Republika Srpska in Bosnia then was seriously pressing Darko for a fast publication so we stayed up many nights over his apartment in Forest Hills, New York working to do so. The book was entitled, ”The Bosnia Model of Al-Qaeda Terrorism. It can probably still be found and read online. Last time I checked it was posted on the website: http://www.analyst-network.com/profile.php?user_id=240.
Darko always told me I possessed full rights to this and other publications we worked on together. Although I edited and co-authoring the Al-Qaeda work, a few years back I noticed Darko removed my name on the inner front cover page as editor replacing it with the name of a Serbian editor. When questioned about it Darko told me he kept my name from being published because of the death threats and dangers to my life that he himself encountered because of its publication. I do vividly remember Darko receiving a great many death threats and threats towards his wife at the time, Bojana.