Hartmann found guilty of contempt of court

The court stated that this kind of conduct could deter states from cooperating with the Hague Tribunal.
--
Well a €7000 fine isn't really a deterent, now is it? I wonder why Seselj got 15 months for publishing material in his book but this person only got a €7000 fine?

You don't need a judge's ruling to find journalists to be contempt. Whole droves (including some 'historians') have made their names and careers reporting on the Balkans skewed 'facts', reporting rumor and half-truths as reality and burying or ignoring information that did not support their opinions.

Plus ca change.

As for a couple of commenters,
there seems to be a dearth of literacy and basic comprehension on the facts of this case.

That Belgrade had communications with Pale is not in question at all. That these confidential documents are some way 'proof' that Belgrade pulled the strings in Pale is nothing but pure supposition and speculation, taken in place of any real or presentable fact.

If these documents were 'proof' as some people do claim, then they would have either been long destroyed, their existence denied or never handed over in the first place to the ICTY.

The desperation that some cling to like straws is far more reflective of the fact that the the exaggerated and outrageous claims and out right lies by the bosnian moslem and other myth makers are so hollow.

Why doesn't the mainstream media ask, for example, the following clear and logical question:

"If the Serbs and Serbia are responsible for genocide in Bosnia, then how is it that their (and that of the majority of judges in the Krstic trial) central supporting plank of evidence is solely on the events in and around Srebrenica right at the end of the war, even though most of those killed being soldiers and not civilian non-combattants?"

They don't ask the question because they don't like the response which contradicts everything they had been saying for years before.

As for Hartmann, she has a particularly twisted view of ethics that as a journalist she is supposed to follow.

She started off as a journalist reporting on the Balkans and then became spokesperson for the ICTY. Some would question her impartiality which is supposed to be central to the practicing of journalism. She goes on to be official mouth piece for the ICTY (like BBC's former defense correspondent Mark Laity became spokesman for NATO), so no real surprise there.

But then, she returns to her first love and magically considers herself unbound by anything she has signed, confidential or not, only to deliver a book whose central theme is based on the thinnest threads of reality which is in effect a conspiracy theory, effectively accusing her former employers of covering up responsibility for war crimes!

All because she 'believes' that these documents 'could' be used to indict Serbia for genocide.

Florence Hartmann, Judge, Jury and Executioner. A law unto herself. Keeping journalism in the low esteem that has long been expected of it.

I wonder why - unlike the BBC - B92 doesn't bother to mention what kind of confidential information it was that Ms Hartmann published.
Surely it wouldn't have been too much trouble to include a short statement like this one: "She was found guilty of disclosing the existence of confidential documents on Serbian government involvement in the Bosnian war of the 1990s" (BBC News).

"Hartmann was accused of revealing details of the Slobodan Milošević case in her recently published book."

Not a word of what those details were B92? Well, I will say a word: they show Serbia's involvement in the Srebrenica massacre. That's according to BBC news and every other independent news agency that reported the story!

'I wonder why Seselj got 15 months for publishing material in his book but this person only got a €7000 fine?'

Seselj outed a couple of witnesses - remember the uproar over accusations of witness-intimidation after Haradinaj was freed? Hartmann provided evidence of a deal between the court and the Serbian government that allowed it to withhold evidence of its responsibility for Srebrenica as being deleterious to its national interests, thus distorting the official historical record. In any case, the information Hartmann published had been unofficially available before she wrote her book, which in some jurisdictions would have made it impossible to bring charges against her.

# I wonder why - unlike the BBC - B92 doesn't bother to mention what kind of confidential information it was that Ms Hartmann published.
Surely it wouldn't have been too much trouble to include a short statement like this one: "She was found guilty of disclosing the existence of confidential documents on Serbian government involvement in the Bosnian war of the 1990s" (BBC News).
(AF, 14 September 2009 12:42)
Your vote has been recorded ­ thank you for participating.
# "Hartmann was accused of revealing details of the Slobodan Milošević case in her recently published book."

Not a word of what those details were B92? Well, I will say a word: they show Serbia's involvement in the Srebrenica massacre. That's according to BBC news and every other independent news agency that reported the story!
(BalkanUpdate, 14 September 2009 13:07)

thanks for both of your comments and i am familiar with the specs of the case, and am in 100% agreement with your point(s).

i think we should start up or support a fund to help pay off the fine and to offer moral support. from me that is saying a lot, since when i met ole ms. hartman, for appr. 2 seconds several years back, she was not very pleasant. but i shall overlook it for the cause.

thanks again and send any ideas my way, please.

roberto
robertoruss@yahoo.com

"Hartmann was accused of revealing details of the Slobodan Milošević case in her recently published book."

Not a word of what those details were B92? Well, I will say a word: they show Serbia's involvement in the Srebrenica massacre. That's according to BBC news and every other independent news agency that reported the story!

I wonder why - unlike the BBC - B92 doesn't bother to mention what kind of confidential information it was that Ms Hartmann published.
Surely it wouldn't have been too much trouble to include a short statement like this one: "She was found guilty of disclosing the existence of confidential documents on Serbian government involvement in the Bosnian war of the 1990s" (BBC News).

# I wonder why - unlike the BBC - B92 doesn't bother to mention what kind of confidential information it was that Ms Hartmann published.
Surely it wouldn't have been too much trouble to include a short statement like this one: "She was found guilty of disclosing the existence of confidential documents on Serbian government involvement in the Bosnian war of the 1990s" (BBC News).
(AF, 14 September 2009 12:42)
Your vote has been recorded ­ thank you for participating.
# "Hartmann was accused of revealing details of the Slobodan Milošević case in her recently published book."

Not a word of what those details were B92? Well, I will say a word: they show Serbia's involvement in the Srebrenica massacre. That's according to BBC news and every other independent news agency that reported the story!
(BalkanUpdate, 14 September 2009 13:07)

thanks for both of your comments and i am familiar with the specs of the case, and am in 100% agreement with your point(s).

i think we should start up or support a fund to help pay off the fine and to offer moral support. from me that is saying a lot, since when i met ole ms. hartman, for appr. 2 seconds several years back, she was not very pleasant. but i shall overlook it for the cause.

thanks again and send any ideas my way, please.

roberto
robertoruss@yahoo.com

'I wonder why Seselj got 15 months for publishing material in his book but this person only got a €7000 fine?'

Seselj outed a couple of witnesses - remember the uproar over accusations of witness-intimidation after Haradinaj was freed? Hartmann provided evidence of a deal between the court and the Serbian government that allowed it to withhold evidence of its responsibility for Srebrenica as being deleterious to its national interests, thus distorting the official historical record. In any case, the information Hartmann published had been unofficially available before she wrote her book, which in some jurisdictions would have made it impossible to bring charges against her.

The court stated that this kind of conduct could deter states from cooperating with the Hague Tribunal.
--
Well a €7000 fine isn't really a deterent, now is it? I wonder why Seselj got 15 months for publishing material in his book but this person only got a €7000 fine?

You don't need a judge's ruling to find journalists to be contempt. Whole droves (including some 'historians') have made their names and careers reporting on the Balkans skewed 'facts', reporting rumor and half-truths as reality and burying or ignoring information that did not support their opinions.

Plus ca change.

As for a couple of commenters,
there seems to be a dearth of literacy and basic comprehension on the facts of this case.

That Belgrade had communications with Pale is not in question at all. That these confidential documents are some way 'proof' that Belgrade pulled the strings in Pale is nothing but pure supposition and speculation, taken in place of any real or presentable fact.

If these documents were 'proof' as some people do claim, then they would have either been long destroyed, their existence denied or never handed over in the first place to the ICTY.

The desperation that some cling to like straws is far more reflective of the fact that the the exaggerated and outrageous claims and out right lies by the bosnian moslem and other myth makers are so hollow.

Why doesn't the mainstream media ask, for example, the following clear and logical question:

"If the Serbs and Serbia are responsible for genocide in Bosnia, then how is it that their (and that of the majority of judges in the Krstic trial) central supporting plank of evidence is solely on the events in and around Srebrenica right at the end of the war, even though most of those killed being soldiers and not civilian non-combattants?"

They don't ask the question because they don't like the response which contradicts everything they had been saying for years before.

As for Hartmann, she has a particularly twisted view of ethics that as a journalist she is supposed to follow.

She started off as a journalist reporting on the Balkans and then became spokesperson for the ICTY. Some would question her impartiality which is supposed to be central to the practicing of journalism. She goes on to be official mouth piece for the ICTY (like BBC's former defense correspondent Mark Laity became spokesman for NATO), so no real surprise there.

But then, she returns to her first love and magically considers herself unbound by anything she has signed, confidential or not, only to deliver a book whose central theme is based on the thinnest threads of reality which is in effect a conspiracy theory, effectively accusing her former employers of covering up responsibility for war crimes!

All because she 'believes' that these documents 'could' be used to indict Serbia for genocide.

Florence Hartmann, Judge, Jury and Executioner. A law unto herself. Keeping journalism in the low esteem that has long been expected of it.