Karadžić request could prove “troublesome for Germany”

An advanced strategy is tried with Mladic: His family wants him to be declared dead, so he's innocent, too. Amusing.
(Top, 23 June 2010 11:48)
--
As usual, you missed the point. With regard to Mladic, it's simply a legal matter to gain access to the family assets. Nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

Karadžić has every right to conduct his case as he sees fit. NATO's, Germany's, the US and UK's involvement in providing logistics, weapons and intelligence to the Bosnian Muslims (and Croatians) is very relevant as far as I'm concerned.

In the case of Milosevic, the prosecution case was a major factor in the delay. Milosevic was denied medical treatment for his heart by the judges. If you spent your time reading the transcripts rather than speaking regurgatative non-sense you'd know this.

Now we all know this court is a farce. Even NATO has pretty much admitted it's one of their courts.

Will everyone else now find out what Serbs, Croats and Muslims already know?

No doubt here that this is done in an attempt to show how the ICJ is not really interested in finding out what really happened in the war. Also, for sure this attempt is to divert attention.

However, this Schwarz-Schilling saying: “throwing such information into the case in order to move attention away from the real facts”, is very telling for this man's idea of justice (and with him a majority in the West, I'm afraid).

How comes that facts concerning one side's wrongdoings are "real" facts, and facts that might prove the the involvement of Germany, US and France in bankrolling the non-Serbian side of the war (covertly, illegally and getting very rich in the process) should be considered "unreal" or irrelevant.

No surprise here that politicians try to keep their covert operations out of daylight. If Germany is to succeed in blocking these documents, it would make a mockery out of international justice Though. Regardless of the possibility that Karadžić makes this request as a pure stalling tactic.

I suspect we'll be reading one day how Karadzic was found dead in his cell.

These documents go to the heart of the case. The testimony of international witnesses is afforded greater weight in these trials because (unlike Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians, etc...) it is believed that international witnesses are impartial because "they don't have a dog in the fight".

If it turns out that some foreign governments had an interest in the outcome of the conflict that greatly undermines the impartial status of the witnesses from those countries, especially the witnesses who are or were military or political officials serving those governments (like most of the international witnesses are).

This issue goes to the weight of their evidence. For example, if it turns out that the Bosniaks and the Americans were "on the same team" so to speak. Why should the testimony of Serbian witnesses be afforded less weight than the combined testimony of Bosniak and American witnesses about the same events?

In this example, the role of the Americans makes a big difference. If the Americans were impartial observers monitoring the conflict they could corroborate the Bosniak version of events and refute the Serbian version, but if the Americans are involved in the conflict on the Bosniak side the American testimony would merely be cumulative testimony from one of the warring factions, and it wouldn't carry any greater weight than the testimony of the opposing Serbian faction.

How diplomatic can you get! Public want to know the truth.

I do not agree with either Schillings nor Prof. Tomuschat's commnets in respect to Karadices trial. Weapon smuggling was general knowledge in Bosnia during the war years. However wonder what other useful information telecommunications will come up with if it is endangering German's national and security interests!

There is no excuse for Srebrenica but I wonder if some people are obsessed with Karadic and Mladic. Was there nothing else worth reporting like a number of Mujohadeens in Bosnia and what the were all up to or is it just turn a blind eye to the situation. And we are today fighting terrorism in the west. Just think!

How comes that facts concerning one side's wrongdoings are "real" facts, and facts that might prove the the involvement of Germany, US and France in bankrolling the non-Serbian side of the war (covertly, illegally and getting very rich in the process) should be considered "unreal" or irrelevant.
(pipsqueak, 23 June 2010 12:27)
--
We all know that's how the hypocrits function. Here a couple of examples taken from this http://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990517b.htm (NATO press conference).
--
Jamie Shea : As you know, without NATO countries there would be no International Court of Justice, nor would there be any International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia because NATO countries are in the forefront of those who have established these two tribunals, who fund these tribunals and who support on a daily basis their activities. We are the upholders, not the violators, of international law.

Jamie Shea : The charge by Yugoslavia was brought under the genocide convention. That does not apply to NATO countries. As to whom it does apply, I think we know the answer there.

Top, yes it would have been different if various western countries didn't sneak weapons to the Bosniaks. Then they wouldn't have been able to use Srebrenica as a stronghold and the whole war would have been different with less bloodshed in that region. It is a valid question to ask where the weapons came from.

Right now I think ICTY is very nervous because everything that happens in the trial can potentially increase already high tensions i Bosnia.

FYI, the Karadzic case is (mainly) about the genocide in Srebrenica.
(Top, 23 June 2010 17:48)
--
The whole NATO court was designed to serve selective justice and demonstrate "might is right". They think by punishing Serbians for going against the "might" of the time, somehow we'll get on our knees and beg.

Fortunately, we're not that type and we're in for the long haul. The "might" of the time are starting to look fairly weak. The sell-outs won't be there forever either.

Karadzic is no more guilty of crimes than other leaders of the time - that includes those from the former YU and the West.

Top said:

"Yes! This might happen. It's the Milosevic stragey, as mentioned in the article: Delaying the process longer and longer by requests for (mostly) unrelated documents - until he dies. And then, some Serbs will claim than another one of there socalled heros is "innocent" (i.e. not convicted guilty - but only because he died before)"
===================

You got him. Yep, this is such a great strategy that everyone on trial should use.
BTW those documents are very relative to the case. They will expose the bias of some countries and their testimony won't be as respected as it is now.

These documents coming out scare you or something?

Considering Western involvement by bringing in mujahideen into Bosnia and the fact that committed numerous atrocities against Serb civilians prior to what happened in Srebrenica is absolutely relevant!

I recently saw the Count of Monte Cristo, which I recall a statement about treason.
"treason is a matter of dates." today a patriot, tomorrow a traitor, and so on. This application towards TRUTH would also stand.

Who's to blame in this mess we call Bosnia and Kosovo? The TRUTH is we all have a share in this crime, and NO ONE side is guiltless. Without truth, dare I say, history may repeat itself and the local people will bear the brunt of these LIES..Serb, Croat, Bosniak, and albanians alike.

"I suspect we'll be reading one day how Karadzic was found dead in his cell."
(Zoran, 23 June 2010 11:05)

Yes! This might happen. It's the Milosevic stragey, as mentioned in the article: Delaying the process longer and longer by requests for (mostly) unrelated documents - until he dies. And then, some Serbs will claim than another one of there socalled heros is "innocent" (i.e. not convicted guilty - but only because he died before)

An advanced strategy is tried with Mladic: His family wants him to be declared dead, so he's innocent, too. Amusing.

Oops, I forgot, these are NATO judges :-)
(Top, 24 June 2010 05:35)
--
Glad you finally understand. Alex has a valid point assuming judges are impartial, however based on the selective justice already served, impartiality is obviously non-existent. Just curious, were there ever any Russian or Chinese judges in these proceedings? Or were they all just Westerners and Western friendly judges?

NATO countries at the forefront of supporting this "court" would obviously like some value for money. If their objectives are not being met then why should they throw away much needed funds? The judges need not be reminded of who pays their salaries. Show trials are just that.

@TOP "the case is not about the war, but about war CRIMES commited and ordered".

That may well be, but the war and the various issues surrounding the war are relevant because they are the aggrivating and mitigating factors behind the crimes charged in the indictments. I know the Tribunal likes to dismiss these issues as "tu quoque" arguments, but I don't care what the judges at the Tribunal say, these issues impact the fundamental fairness of the proceedings.

In every Western legal system aggrivating and mitigating factors are taken into account by the courts. A child abuse victim who kills their abuser is afforded much different treatment than someone who kills their spouse because they want to collect the life insurance money.

"Karadžić has every right to conduct his case as he sees fit. NATO's, Germany's, the US and UK's involvement in providing logistics, weapons and intelligence to the Bosnian Muslims (and Croatians) is very relevant as far as I'm concerned. "
(Zoran, 23 June 2010 12:37)

Sure he has the right, but it's up to the court to decide if some facts are irrelevant for the CURRENT case and or not. FYI, the Karadzic case is (mainly) about the genocide in Srebrenica. It's not about who was resposible or involved in the war.

So, assume it should be discovered that France and/or the UK have violated the embargo and illegally sold/sent weapons to Bosnia. Then, the murders happened in Srebrenica have to seen in a different light? Interesting.

"Karadzic is no more guilty of crimes than other leaders of the time - that includes those from the former YU and the West."
(Zoran, 23 June 2010 19:02)

An interesting interpretation of guilt and personal responsibility. And again, the case is not about the war, but about war CRIMES commited and ordered. Well, never mind, there are judges who decide. Oops, I forgot, these are NATO judges :-)

Just curious, were there ever any Russian or Chinese judges in these proceedings?
Zoran
China has a permanent judge seated on the ICTY.

"Top, yes it would have been different if various western countries didn't sneak weapons to the Bosniaks. Then they wouldn't have been able to use Srebrenica as a stronghold and the whole war would have been different with less bloodshed in that region. It is a valid question to ask where the weapons came from."
(kufr, 23 June 2010 19:26)

Are you serious?!?!?!?!? Or just sarcastic? Bosniaks with no weapons and Serbs with most of the weapons of ex YU army. How would it have been different? They would have surrendered immediately you say.. and then what? everybody would have lived happily ever after? except the "mujaheedens/muslims/turks" of course, which at the time included around 1/3 of the population of Bosnia I bet.

By the way, NATO did not just sneak weapons into Bosnia. They actively and directly bombed the crap out of the Serbian positions around Sarajevo. Too little, too late.

@bytheway "Bosniaks with no weapons and Serbs with most of the weapons of ex YU army. How would it have been different? They would have surrendered immediately you say.. and then what? everybody would have lived happily ever after?"

Well yeah. The Bosnian war was totally pointless to begin with. None of it had to happen. Everyone who died in that war died in vein.

The Cutileiro Plan isn't that different from the Dayton Accords and if the Muslims hadn't renegged on the Cutileiro Plan before the war ever started everyone would have gotten basically the same territory they have now, but without any of the massacres or ethnic cleansing. There wouldn't have been a siege on Sarajevo. There wouldn't have been a Srebrenica massacre. None of it would have happened. There wouldn't be a Tribunal in the Hague and none of us would even be having this conversation.

Even if the Muslims had accepted Owen-Stoltenberg, or the HMS Invincible agreements (which the Serbs agreed to and which weren't unfavorable to the Muslims), or if the Muslims and the Americans hadn't sabotaged the Vance-Owen plan to ensure that the Bosnian-Serbs would reject it, the war could have ended a lot sooner with a lot less bloodshed.

"I suspect we'll be reading one day how Karadzic was found dead in his cell."
(Zoran, 23 June 2010 11:05)

Yes! This might happen. It's the Milosevic stragey, as mentioned in the article: Delaying the process longer and longer by requests for (mostly) unrelated documents - until he dies. And then, some Serbs will claim than another one of there socalled heros is "innocent" (i.e. not convicted guilty - but only because he died before)

An advanced strategy is tried with Mladic: His family wants him to be declared dead, so he's innocent, too. Amusing.

"Karadžić has every right to conduct his case as he sees fit. NATO's, Germany's, the US and UK's involvement in providing logistics, weapons and intelligence to the Bosnian Muslims (and Croatians) is very relevant as far as I'm concerned. "
(Zoran, 23 June 2010 12:37)

Sure he has the right, but it's up to the court to decide if some facts are irrelevant for the CURRENT case and or not. FYI, the Karadzic case is (mainly) about the genocide in Srebrenica. It's not about who was resposible or involved in the war.

So, assume it should be discovered that France and/or the UK have violated the embargo and illegally sold/sent weapons to Bosnia. Then, the murders happened in Srebrenica have to seen in a different light? Interesting.

I suspect we'll be reading one day how Karadzic was found dead in his cell.

An advanced strategy is tried with Mladic: His family wants him to be declared dead, so he's innocent, too. Amusing.
(Top, 23 June 2010 11:48)
--
As usual, you missed the point. With regard to Mladic, it's simply a legal matter to gain access to the family assets. Nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

Karadžić has every right to conduct his case as he sees fit. NATO's, Germany's, the US and UK's involvement in providing logistics, weapons and intelligence to the Bosnian Muslims (and Croatians) is very relevant as far as I'm concerned.

In the case of Milosevic, the prosecution case was a major factor in the delay. Milosevic was denied medical treatment for his heart by the judges. If you spent your time reading the transcripts rather than speaking regurgatative non-sense you'd know this.

Now we all know this court is a farce. Even NATO has pretty much admitted it's one of their courts.

"Karadzic is no more guilty of crimes than other leaders of the time - that includes those from the former YU and the West."
(Zoran, 23 June 2010 19:02)

An interesting interpretation of guilt and personal responsibility. And again, the case is not about the war, but about war CRIMES commited and ordered. Well, never mind, there are judges who decide. Oops, I forgot, these are NATO judges :-)

Considering Western involvement by bringing in mujahideen into Bosnia and the fact that committed numerous atrocities against Serb civilians prior to what happened in Srebrenica is absolutely relevant!

FYI, the Karadzic case is (mainly) about the genocide in Srebrenica.
(Top, 23 June 2010 17:48)
--
The whole NATO court was designed to serve selective justice and demonstrate "might is right". They think by punishing Serbians for going against the "might" of the time, somehow we'll get on our knees and beg.

Fortunately, we're not that type and we're in for the long haul. The "might" of the time are starting to look fairly weak. The sell-outs won't be there forever either.

Karadzic is no more guilty of crimes than other leaders of the time - that includes those from the former YU and the West.

No doubt here that this is done in an attempt to show how the ICJ is not really interested in finding out what really happened in the war. Also, for sure this attempt is to divert attention.

However, this Schwarz-Schilling saying: “throwing such information into the case in order to move attention away from the real facts”, is very telling for this man's idea of justice (and with him a majority in the West, I'm afraid).

How comes that facts concerning one side's wrongdoings are "real" facts, and facts that might prove the the involvement of Germany, US and France in bankrolling the non-Serbian side of the war (covertly, illegally and getting very rich in the process) should be considered "unreal" or irrelevant.

No surprise here that politicians try to keep their covert operations out of daylight. If Germany is to succeed in blocking these documents, it would make a mockery out of international justice Though. Regardless of the possibility that Karadžić makes this request as a pure stalling tactic.

These documents go to the heart of the case. The testimony of international witnesses is afforded greater weight in these trials because (unlike Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians, etc...) it is believed that international witnesses are impartial because "they don't have a dog in the fight".

If it turns out that some foreign governments had an interest in the outcome of the conflict that greatly undermines the impartial status of the witnesses from those countries, especially the witnesses who are or were military or political officials serving those governments (like most of the international witnesses are).

This issue goes to the weight of their evidence. For example, if it turns out that the Bosniaks and the Americans were "on the same team" so to speak. Why should the testimony of Serbian witnesses be afforded less weight than the combined testimony of Bosniak and American witnesses about the same events?

In this example, the role of the Americans makes a big difference. If the Americans were impartial observers monitoring the conflict they could corroborate the Bosniak version of events and refute the Serbian version, but if the Americans are involved in the conflict on the Bosniak side the American testimony would merely be cumulative testimony from one of the warring factions, and it wouldn't carry any greater weight than the testimony of the opposing Serbian faction.

How comes that facts concerning one side's wrongdoings are "real" facts, and facts that might prove the the involvement of Germany, US and France in bankrolling the non-Serbian side of the war (covertly, illegally and getting very rich in the process) should be considered "unreal" or irrelevant.
(pipsqueak, 23 June 2010 12:27)
--
We all know that's how the hypocrits function. Here a couple of examples taken from this http://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990517b.htm (NATO press conference).
--
Jamie Shea : As you know, without NATO countries there would be no International Court of Justice, nor would there be any International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia because NATO countries are in the forefront of those who have established these two tribunals, who fund these tribunals and who support on a daily basis their activities. We are the upholders, not the violators, of international law.

Jamie Shea : The charge by Yugoslavia was brought under the genocide convention. That does not apply to NATO countries. As to whom it does apply, I think we know the answer there.

Top, yes it would have been different if various western countries didn't sneak weapons to the Bosniaks. Then they wouldn't have been able to use Srebrenica as a stronghold and the whole war would have been different with less bloodshed in that region. It is a valid question to ask where the weapons came from.

Right now I think ICTY is very nervous because everything that happens in the trial can potentially increase already high tensions i Bosnia.

Top said:

"Yes! This might happen. It's the Milosevic stragey, as mentioned in the article: Delaying the process longer and longer by requests for (mostly) unrelated documents - until he dies. And then, some Serbs will claim than another one of there socalled heros is "innocent" (i.e. not convicted guilty - but only because he died before)"
===================

You got him. Yep, this is such a great strategy that everyone on trial should use.
BTW those documents are very relative to the case. They will expose the bias of some countries and their testimony won't be as respected as it is now.

These documents coming out scare you or something?

Oops, I forgot, these are NATO judges :-)
(Top, 24 June 2010 05:35)
--
Glad you finally understand. Alex has a valid point assuming judges are impartial, however based on the selective justice already served, impartiality is obviously non-existent. Just curious, were there ever any Russian or Chinese judges in these proceedings? Or were they all just Westerners and Western friendly judges?

NATO countries at the forefront of supporting this "court" would obviously like some value for money. If their objectives are not being met then why should they throw away much needed funds? The judges need not be reminded of who pays their salaries. Show trials are just that.

How diplomatic can you get! Public want to know the truth.

I do not agree with either Schillings nor Prof. Tomuschat's commnets in respect to Karadices trial. Weapon smuggling was general knowledge in Bosnia during the war years. However wonder what other useful information telecommunications will come up with if it is endangering German's national and security interests!

There is no excuse for Srebrenica but I wonder if some people are obsessed with Karadic and Mladic. Was there nothing else worth reporting like a number of Mujohadeens in Bosnia and what the were all up to or is it just turn a blind eye to the situation. And we are today fighting terrorism in the west. Just think!

I recently saw the Count of Monte Cristo, which I recall a statement about treason.
"treason is a matter of dates." today a patriot, tomorrow a traitor, and so on. This application towards TRUTH would also stand.

Who's to blame in this mess we call Bosnia and Kosovo? The TRUTH is we all have a share in this crime, and NO ONE side is guiltless. Without truth, dare I say, history may repeat itself and the local people will bear the brunt of these LIES..Serb, Croat, Bosniak, and albanians alike.

@TOP "the case is not about the war, but about war CRIMES commited and ordered".

That may well be, but the war and the various issues surrounding the war are relevant because they are the aggrivating and mitigating factors behind the crimes charged in the indictments. I know the Tribunal likes to dismiss these issues as "tu quoque" arguments, but I don't care what the judges at the Tribunal say, these issues impact the fundamental fairness of the proceedings.

In every Western legal system aggrivating and mitigating factors are taken into account by the courts. A child abuse victim who kills their abuser is afforded much different treatment than someone who kills their spouse because they want to collect the life insurance money.

Will everyone else now find out what Serbs, Croats and Muslims already know?

@bytheway "Bosniaks with no weapons and Serbs with most of the weapons of ex YU army. How would it have been different? They would have surrendered immediately you say.. and then what? everybody would have lived happily ever after?"

Well yeah. The Bosnian war was totally pointless to begin with. None of it had to happen. Everyone who died in that war died in vein.

The Cutileiro Plan isn't that different from the Dayton Accords and if the Muslims hadn't renegged on the Cutileiro Plan before the war ever started everyone would have gotten basically the same territory they have now, but without any of the massacres or ethnic cleansing. There wouldn't have been a siege on Sarajevo. There wouldn't have been a Srebrenica massacre. None of it would have happened. There wouldn't be a Tribunal in the Hague and none of us would even be having this conversation.

Even if the Muslims had accepted Owen-Stoltenberg, or the HMS Invincible agreements (which the Serbs agreed to and which weren't unfavorable to the Muslims), or if the Muslims and the Americans hadn't sabotaged the Vance-Owen plan to ensure that the Bosnian-Serbs would reject it, the war could have ended a lot sooner with a lot less bloodshed.

Just curious, were there ever any Russian or Chinese judges in these proceedings?
Zoran
China has a permanent judge seated on the ICTY.

"Top, yes it would have been different if various western countries didn't sneak weapons to the Bosniaks. Then they wouldn't have been able to use Srebrenica as a stronghold and the whole war would have been different with less bloodshed in that region. It is a valid question to ask where the weapons came from."
(kufr, 23 June 2010 19:26)

Are you serious?!?!?!?!? Or just sarcastic? Bosniaks with no weapons and Serbs with most of the weapons of ex YU army. How would it have been different? They would have surrendered immediately you say.. and then what? everybody would have lived happily ever after? except the "mujaheedens/muslims/turks" of course, which at the time included around 1/3 of the population of Bosnia I bet.

By the way, NATO did not just sneak weapons into Bosnia. They actively and directly bombed the crap out of the Serbian positions around Sarajevo. Too little, too late.