49

Monday, 15.09.2014.

11:39

Serbs in Bosnia "closely watching" Scottish referendum

Bosnian Serbs are "closely watching Scotland's independence referendum," the French agency AFP is reporting on Monday.

Izvor: AFP

Serbs in Bosnia "closely watching" Scottish referendum IMAGE SOURCE
IMAGE DESCRIPTION

49 Komentari

Sortiraj po:

Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 20 September 2014 21:57): Is your position that hearsay evidence can NEVER be admitted?
-------------------------
My position: the lack of any rule against hearsay evidence is laughable.

Reputable jurists have been mocking the ICTY and their decision that "admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition".
This is the judges' interpretation of rule 89c. NOT mine. If you claim that 89c does enable admission of hearsay evidence without prohibition, then please do forward your complaint to the ICTY...

The lack of any prohibition to admitting hearsay evidence means many qualifiers are appropriate:

i.e the ICTY generally accepts hearsay, or the ICTY in most cases accepts hearsay, or the ICTY stupidly accepts hearsay, or the ICTY fundamentally accepts hearsay are ALL true. The analogy is similar to lifting speed limits on highways, such that you can drive 210 km/h or 250 km/h or 5 km/h. None of these are the same, but all are more dangerous than driving between 70 and 130 km/h, which is why many jurisdictions establish and enforce limits.

The lack of prohibition enables many possibilities and it is the ICTY that enforces NO PROHIBITION ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE, not me. I simply laugh at the lunacy and their apologists.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 9 godina

icj1 ignorantly claims "But that also means that rule is not categorical; in other words “generally” is not the same as “always”
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 13:59)

Well, you used the word “generally” so if you are ignorant, not much I can do – I just quoted you.
----------

Please note the writing in sub-Rule 89 (C) "... the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition". Do you wish to deny these ICTY writings also? Not subject to any prohibition ...
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 13:59)

No, that's not the 89(C) writing http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Rules_procedure_evidence/IT032Rev49_en.pdf
----------

is quite consistent with fundamentally accepting hearsay evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 13:59)

“fundamentally accepting hearsay evidence” is not the same thing as “generally accepting hearsay evidence”. Mate, make up your mind what you want to prove and show evidence to that effect. Otherwise you are all over the place and change statements every other post.
----------

The written decision in the Blaksic case where the trial chamber interpreted subrule 89c: "Trial Chamber considered that the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 15:19)

Well, that is not the same as “generally accepting hearsay evidence”. Mate, to make this simple for you: Is your position that hearsay evidence can NEVER be admitted?

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

icj1 persistently claims "You still have not shown a specific ICTY Decision accepting a specific “hearsay evidence” so we can make an informed argument on whether that Decision was right or wrong based on the arguments presented in the Decision."

--------------


The written decision in the Blaksic case where the trial chamber interpreted subrule 89c: "Trial Chamber considered that the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition".

icj1, your complaint about the lack of any legal reasoning or informed argument about this ICTY decision is entirely misdirected. Please address your complaint to the ringmaster at the ICTY circus.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 19 September 2014 04:15) Yes, I agree, ICTY agrees and everybody agrees to generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.

-----

Wrong, mate.
The ICTY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the rule against hearsay.

You and I may agree that reputable jurist recognize this rule, but the ICTY writes in strong and plain language that HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.

icj1 ignorantly claims "But that also means that rule is not categorical; in other words “generally” is not the same as “always”

Please note the writing in sub-Rule 89 (C) "... the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition"

Do you wish to deny these ICTY writings also? Not subject to any prohibition ... is quite consistent with fundamentally accepting hearsay evidence.

Keep denying and ignoring your obvious dishonesty.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

Your denial of this written fact, is your problem, mate :)
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

Well, YOU writing that ICTY “generally accepts hearsay evidence” does not make it an ICTY writing so there is no fact for me to deny :)
----------

Thank you for helping me expose the lunatics of the ICTY, and the dishonesty of their apologists.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

No problem mate… I’ll always help to expose the dishonesty of people like you quoting “ICTY writings” and then, when it is exposed that those writings were never written by ICTY, switch to other “ICTY writings”.
----------

most reputable jurists who, in contrast to the ICTY, generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 17:33)

Yes, I agree, ICTY agrees and everybody agrees to generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence. But that also means that rule is not categorical; in other words “generally” is not the same as “always” and “fundamental rule of evidence” does not mean that it is not “evidence” at all, just not a “fundamental” one.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 18 September 2014 06:01) The link above has not any writing stating a "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Nice try mate; as usual strong statements about a scandalous ICTY and then you come up with... nothing as evidence :)
----------

The link from the ICTY states that HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, in strong bold text emphasized by the ICTY, not me.

Your refusal to acknowledge this strong statement from the ICTY, is your problem, mate. I did not write this text. The ICTY wrote the strong statement. Why do you falsely attempt to label this legal lunacy as my writing. Look carefully: the link is to an ICTY website.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

It’s the first time you mention “HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE”. So, I obviously could not have refused something that you had never mentioned before. I don’t the ability to travel in time :).

And there are a couple of other problems. First, “HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE” is not the same as "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Make up your mind on whether you want to debate about the former or the latter. Second, the link you quoted clearly states “Not an official document”. So, not sure it’s worth our time to debate something that ultimately is not an ICTY’s official document.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

icj1 wrote "I said nowhere that ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute". You have difficulties in quoting the correct things, dear :)"

The ICTY idiotic decision to accept hearsay is based on "absence from statute".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

Ok, that’s your statement not mine… I nowhere mentioned any "absence from statute".
----------

Do you agree or disagree with the decision to accept hearsay evidence? Please make up mind, you appear to be confused.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

Well, that’s not a question that can be answered in the abstract. You still have not shown a specific ICTY Decision accepting a specific “hearsay evidence” so we can make an informed argument on whether that Decision was right or wrong based on the arguments presented in the Decision.
----------

icj1 writes "Nope, YOU recognize that thing that is not even a fact, not ALL."

I'm not sure what this drivel means other than your desperate need for help in logic and/or English composition. However, I do recognize the ICTY written text: HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

That means that your statement “We all recognize the Fact: The ICTY generally accepts hearsay evidence” is false. Even you understood that as you now changed the tune to “HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE”.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(Reader, 18 September 2014 16:33) ... The fact that they accept "hearsay as evidence"...

----

Dear Reader, thank you for the affirmation that ICTY's acceptance of hearsay evidence is indeed a fact.

Please note that this fact is antithetical to most reputable jurists who, in contrast to the ICTY, generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.

I don't think your "Euro" analogy is appropriate. A more relevant analogy is that a group of UN bureaucrats in the Hague endorse the use of non-legal tender Monopoly play money, that no one else in the world accepts or recognizes.

Indeed, lots of laughs courtesy of the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
Reader

pre 9 godina

Thank you for helping me expose the lunatics of the ICTY, and the dishonesty of their apologists.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

LOL, hold your horses there, you did no such thing. You just had an argument with icj1, which you may have won or not won. The argument was on a single aspect of the Hague court. The fact that they accept "hearsay as evidence" (I am assuming just for the sake of argument what you say) does not mean that all their evidence is hearsay.
It would be like somebody saying "All Serbs were using euros in 1994" just because one person on this forum received 20 euros in 1994 to participate in some demonstrations agains Milosevic. That is clearly not true.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 18 September 2014 06:01) The link above has not any writing stating a "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Nice try mate; as usual strong statements about a scandalous ICTY and then you come up with... nothing as evidence :)

----------

The link from the ICTY states that HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, in strong bold text emphasized by the ICTY, not me.


Your refusal to acknowledge this strong statement from the ICTY, is your problem, mate. I did not write this text. The ICTY wrote the strong statement. Why do you falsely attempt to label this legal lunacy as my writing. Look carefully: the link is to an ICTY website.

icj1 wrote "I said nowhere that ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute". You have difficulties in quoting the correct things, dear :)"

The ICTY idiotic decision to accept hearsay is based on "absence from statute". Do you agree or disagree with the decision to accept hearsay evidence? Please make up mind, you appear to be confused.


icj1 writes "Nope, YOU recognize that thing that is not even a fact, not ALL."

I'm not sure what this drivel means other than your desperate need for help in logic and/or English composition. However, I do recognize the ICTY written text: HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.

Your denial of this written fact, is your problem, mate :)
Thank you for helping me expose the lunatics of the ICTY, and the dishonesty of their apologists.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

Here is a reference: [link]

Precedence for the ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence was provided during the Tadic trial.

You strongly refuse to take to take my word, as the notion of generally accepting hearsay is contrary to your understanding of criminal justice. Realize that these are not my words. They are the writings of the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 15:05)

The link above has not any writing stating a "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Nice try mate; as usual strong statements about a scandalous ICTY and then you come up with... nothing as evidence :)
----------

Your argument that the ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute"
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 15:37)

I said nowhere that ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute". You have difficulties in quoting the correct things, dear :)
----------

We all recognize the Fact: The ICTY generally accepts hearsay evidence. (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 17:28)

Nope, YOU recognize that thing that is not even a fact, not ALL. You provided no ICTY writing whatsoever saying that ICTY “generally accepts hearsay evidence”. You continue having challenges with quotations :)

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

In its decision, the Trial Chamber noted that the Tribunal's Rules do not specifically exclude hearsay evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 13 September 2014 01:14)

Well, if the Statute approved by the UNSC says so, than it is not the Trial Chamber that is “laughable” – that Chamber is following the Law (i.e. the Statute), but it is Russia which is “laughable” in proposing and approving that Court.
(icj1, 17 September 2014 04:55)

The statute does not endorse hearsay evidence. If, as you claim, it does "say so", then please cite the specific portion of the written statute that affirms acceptance of hearsay evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 15:37)

I did not claim what you say I claimed. Read what I said… there is an “if”. You brought up the Rules, not me. And there can be nothing wrong with the Trial Chamber applying the rules.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

icj1: You asked for a quote from the Yugoslav constitution proving that it was violated regarding illegal secession. Well, suck on this:
"Article 5
requires the consent of all republics and provinces before the
borders of Yugoslavia can be altered.49 Article 283 gives the Yugoslav
Assembly the power to determine alterations in the state's
boundaries. 50 Thus, the provisions of the constitution seem to
suggest that secession is possible if the federal government and
all of the republics and provinces agree to it."

Go back and do your homework.
(njegos, 17 September 2014 13:32)

sorry, dear, but you did not reject my quote "From icj1: "Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession"."

Bosnia chose to follow the Yogoslavia's constitution as per above... they did not do anything illegal by following Yogoslavia's constitution.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

Another brilliant piece of deduction on the part of the AE. How do you do it? You certainly are a legend in your own mind pratling on in another universe.
P.S AE=Albanian Einstein
(sj, 17 September 2014 11:29)

Of course, I love being in the universe built by the CE of B92 forums sj - it's such a magnificent universe :)

P.S. CE = Chief Economist

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:30) Evidence please... Ironically, you saying "reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades" is not evidence, but it is a perfect example of hearsay evidence. Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

----

In response to your persistent demand, I have provided direct and first-hand detailed text from the ICTY's own writings and website in my previous response to this and other B92 comment streams.

We all recognize the Fact: The ICTY generally accepts hearsay evidence.

You icj1, in contrast to the ICTY, refuse to accept hearsay evidence. Please note that the standard of evidence used in our simple discussion on B92 is closer to the standard of reputable jurists and is far superior to quality of evidence accepted by the quasi-judicial farce masquerading as a tribunal at the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 04:55) Well, if the Statute approved by the UNSC says so, than it is not the Trial Chamber that is “laughable” – that Chamber is following the Law (i.e. the Statute)
----------

The statute does not endorse hearsay evidence. If, as you claim, it does "say so", then please cite the specific portion of the written statute that affirms acceptance of hearsay evidence.

Your argument that the ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute", rather than well entrenched jurisprudence recognized by most reputable criminal judiciaries world wide, speaks volumes about the stupidity running amok in the trial chambers at the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:30): Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

---
Here is a reference: http://www.icty.org/sid/7324

Precedence for the ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence was provided during the Tadic trial.
The decision rendered on 5 August 1996, Trial Chamber II (Judges McDonald, Stephen, Vohrah) rejected a motion filed by counsel for Mr. Tadic seeking to exclude hearsay evidence during the trial as a general rule.
In its decision, the Trial Chamber noted that the Tribunal's Rules do not specifically exclude hearsay evidence.

You strongly refuse to take to take my word, as the notion of generally accepting hearsay is contrary to your understanding of criminal justice. Realize that these are not my words. They are the writings of the ICTY.

Most reputable jurists, unlike the ICTY, generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:30) Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

----

Hearsay evidence generally accepted by the ICTY:
http://www.icty.org/sid/7700

This is a press release by the ICTY summarizing the written decision. The link to this legal embarrassment on the ICTY Case website is missing. Please direct your inquiries regaring its absence to the (in)competency of the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
njegos

pre 9 godina

icj1: You asked for a quote from the Yugoslav constitution proving that it was violated regarding illegal secession. Well, suck on this:
"Article 5
requires the consent of all republics and provinces before the
borders of Yugoslavia can be altered.49 Article 283 gives the Yugoslav
Assembly the power to determine alterations in the state's
boundaries. 50 Thus, the provisions of the constitution seem to
suggest that secession is possible if the federal government and
all of the republics and provinces agree to it."

Go back and do your homework.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 1
sj

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:43)
Another brilliant piece of deduction on the part of the AE. How do you do it? You certainly are a legend in your own mind pratling on in another universe.
P.S AE=Albanian Einstein

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 2
Morning Shake

pre 9 godina

Why would a 20 year old voter in RS want to be part of a Country that despises his ethnicity and calls him a war criminal?

(marKo, 15 September 2014 19:05)

Because this is Balkans and this is what people do just like Serbs still complain about Germany or Ustas etc.

Also because there are Serbs walking are that have raped and killed.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 9 godina

To allow the Scots to vote on independence but refuse, say the Catalonmians the same opportunity would be tantamount to racial discrimination.
(sj, 16 September 2014 06:33)

Hmm, I was trying to find where "Catalonmians" live in the UK for them to be discriminated against the Scots, but for some reason could not find them. Can you provide some more details about that, dear? Don't get me wrong, btw... I'd love for the Catalonmians to be independent if they so wish.
----------

On the issue of threats of war if RS decided to hold such a referendum is just a fanciful theory. Who would take up arms? Bosniaks or Croats? Please stop dreaming. Whilst the EU keeps pumping Euros into Bosnia RS remains there but the moment that stops it bye, bye Bosnia.
(sj, 16 September 2014 06:33)

That's great. That would be another act in support of Kosovo's independence plus another country will recognize Kosovo.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 16 September 2014 05:22) Yogoslavia's (sic) constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

-----

icj1, your familiarity with SFRJ constitution law resembles your remarkable ignorance of the proceedings at the ICTY. Your remarks about session are reminiscent of your other legal lunatics,
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 September 2014 19:26)

Yogoslavia's (sic, courtesy of our dear Peggy) constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

Not my fault why SFRJ's constitution stated what's in quotes above... Not much I can do if the your familiarity with SFRJ constitution law resembles your remarkable ignorance of the proceedings at the ICTY
----------

such as your refusal to acknowledge ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence, which reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 September 2014 19:26)

Evidence please... Ironically, you saying "reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades" is not evidence, but it is a perfect example of hearsay evidence. Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

From icj1: "Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession"."

Yugoslavia's constitution allowed for secession only if the majority of the country voted for it. No such vote ever took place. Only referendums in Croatia where Croats were the majority and Bosnia where Muslims were the majority. The Yugoslav constitution was violated as was international law. Plain facts.
(njegos, 16 September 2014 13:55)

Thank you for offering your OPINION, not FACT, because you did not quote anything from the SRFJ Constitution. You screaming "plain fact" it does not make it so :)

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 6
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 16 September 2014 05:22) Yogoslavia's (sic) constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

-----

icj1, your familiarity with SFRJ constitution law resembles your remarkable ignorance of the proceedings at the ICTY. Your remarks about session are reminiscent of your other legal lunatics, such as your refusal to acknowledge ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence, which reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 3
Peggy

pre 9 godina

So does that mean it is OK for Sandzak, Vojvodina & Presevo to turn around and say, " Hey to hell with Serbia " we want our Independence. The changing of borders is over, there will be no more creating new countries. The borders will stay as they are and that includes BiH.
(Bam Bam, 16 September 2014 03:47)
=================================
So who determines it's over? You? You think that now your lot has what they want, to Hell with everyone else.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 5
njegos

pre 9 godina

From icj1: "Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession"."

Yugoslavia's constitution allowed for secession only if the majority of the country voted for it. No such vote ever took place. Only referendums in Croatia where Croats were the majority and Bosnia where Muslims were the majority. The Yugoslav constitution was violated as was international law. Plain facts.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 7
Kosovo_Polje1389

pre 9 godina

RS will never become independent, this is a political stunt by the paprika salesman Dodik (he actually was one before the war). When he is crying poor, he threatens to declare independence, but when his back pocket is filled with checks from the EU and USA, he suddenly calms down, WOW, what a coincidence! He is a true Serb politician hahahha

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 9
Adi

pre 9 godina

One thing people outside of the Balkans need to understand, the Serbs were not the only ones committing these war crimes, absolutely everyone did. It just depends what part of ex-yugoslavia you were in at the time. The country is very rich in different ethnic backgrounds. They managed to live together successfully for 50+ years with no problems. Bosniaks would attend Serbian Slavas (Day of the households saint), Serbs would come and eat for eid, they would all spend christmas together. All of a sudden two to three politicians managed to convince everyone in the region that they are different and that each is threatened. Before Islam, Bosniaks were Croats or Serbs and even Turks which is more unlikely and even before that they were Slavs. Before Orthodoxy, Serbs were Slavs. Before Catholicism, Croats were Slavs. In the end here we all share the same ancestors yet everyone fails to understand that and can only see what their televisions say about everything happening and what corrupt politicians say. I strongly, as a Serb/Bosniak hybrid, support RS remaining within Bosnia because those are still my people and a politician will never change my view on that. Take away our religion and our borders and we are all human. I understand that this is a very controversial topic, but to me they will always be my brothers.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 8
Ari Gold

pre 9 godina

LK, 15 September 2014 18:58)

But wasn't it nationalist when Bosnian Muslims wanted to separate from Yugoslavia and live in a Bosniak dominated state? Bosniaks didn't say "fuck nationalism" when they used their majority in this artificial entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina to elect a radical Islamist-salafist Alija Izetbegovic who wrote the Islamic Declaration, his mein kampf.

You can't just open the flood-gates of nationalism and then choose when to shut it off. As if the Serbian community which has always been present in this territory called Bosnia-Herzegovina was going to allow you to separate from a state union with Serbia without trying to form a state of their own- for the sake of their survival.

RS is an artificial entity, but so is the entire idea of a Bosnian nation-state. And just like there are places in RS that were cleansed of Bosniaks, there are places in the Federation that were cleansed of Serbs. It was an extremely unfortunate war. Maybe if the Bosniaks didn't open the floodgates to hell and empower a Muslim radical to be their first President, it wouldn't have came to that.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 7
Chief Yellowhouse

pre 9 godina

It is not about whether RS is scotland.

It is about the ability of RS to follow the same path like Scotland.

And they will.
(scepticism, 15 September 2014 18:51)

And roberto, Bam Bam, Lenard......, like Cameron before them, will sing along with the best of Texas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4mBTjJ_Yrg

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 2
sj

pre 9 godina

(nenad, 15 september 2014 16:26)

Incorrect because Scotland’s referendum has huge implications throughout Europe including Bosnia. To allow the Scots to vote on independence but refuse, say the Catalonmians the same opportunity would be tantamount to racial discrimination.
On the issue of threats of war if RS decided to hold such a referendum is just a fanciful theory. Who would take up arms? Bosniaks or Croats? Please stop dreaming. Whilst the EU keeps pumping Euros into Bosnia RS remains there but the moment that stops it bye, bye Bosnia.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 9 godina

Muslims and Croats didn't ask Yogoslavia's permission to separate
(Peggy, 15 September 2014 22:58)

You are correct; Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 8
Bam Bam

pre 9 godina

@ peggy...Muslims and Croats didn't ask Yogoslavia's permission to separate and you want RS to? Get real.

So does that mean it is OK for Sandzak, Vojvodina & Presevo to turn around and say, " Hey to hell with Serbia " we want our Independence. The changing of borders is over, there will be no more creating new countries. The borders will stay as they are and that includes BiH.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 8
Avni

pre 9 godina

Bosnian Serbs said the same about Crimea. They will be "closely watching" others and have empty dreams. Dayton agreement is the law. If Bosnians and Croats don't agree nothing will happen. Serbia is against also.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 4
Peggy

pre 9 godina

RS was built by ethnic cleansing and genocide and will never be independent or part of Serbia. Get over it. How
===========================
Really fed up with listening to this rubbish. Only the Muslims, Croats and Albanians are saying this. Clearly it's not true, because the international community would never have let it happen if it were.
RS is real so get over it.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
sj

pre 9 godina

(Bob, 15 September 2014 13:31)

Where did you study history to make such an outrageous claim as “Scotland chose to join the UK for economic reasons”? The Pristina school of goat herders? Try brute force and you might be getting a little warmer.

Is there any wonder that Albanians posting on B92 are a laughing stock since they never cease to come up with new ways of showing their ignorance.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 5
Peggy

pre 9 godina

UK is the most democratic place on earth and let's it's people to say what they want in this case with Scotland which the referendum will go in favour of the union that's for sure.
And your so called RS will take generations to become a kind of place as Scotland.
(Naim, 15 September 2014 15:47)
=========================
So you're saying that Bosnia is not democratic and will not allow it's people to decide their own fate? Well said. I agree.
Muslims and Croats didn't ask Yogoslavia's permission to separate and you want RS to? Get real.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 12
marKo

pre 9 godina

If the Bosnian Federation never gives Serbs in RS a reason to want to be part of Bosnia, the Serbs will continue to want to separate. People hurl nothing but insults on RS, blaming even people who were not born yet for war crimes. Why would a 20 year old voter in RS want to be part of a Country that despises his ethnicity and calls him a war criminal?

Eventually there is either going to be a reconciliation or a separation. There is no political interest in the Federation or RS for reconciliation. With a peaceful serperation, both the Federation and RS could move on, but the longer this takes the worse off for everyone.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 7
LK

pre 9 godina

RS was built by ethnic cleansing and genocide and will never be independent or part of Serbia. Get over it. How about spending the time and energy on things like jobs, fighting corruption, creating a new Constitution, and building a better life for all Bosnians, whether they are ethnic Serb, Croat, Bosniak, Roma, or Jew? Fuck the cancer of nationalism.

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 8
Ari Gold

pre 9 godina

Also, Scotland is not an economic and political basket case dependent on the interventions of other countries. Bosnia is.
(Bob, 15 September 2014 13:31)

This is particularly why Bosnia will fall apart. The country is artificially constructed, and is held together by outside money. As this money started to dry up in 2006, it became apparent that Republika Srpska would work towards independence, but also the Croats have increasingly voiced a need for their own entity.

While your so called RS has committed genocide to get the hardly standing autonomy never more then this I am sure.
(Naim, 15 September 2014 15:47)

Genocide? In Sarajevo there were 100, 000 Serbs living there before the war. Now, Turkish and Chinese citizens make up a larger minority in Sarajevo than Serbs do. Is that not genocide? Get over it, the war had both sides committ atrocities including the Bosnian Muslim side receiving help from globe-trotting jihadists like the ones the West is fighting in Iraq today.

Hey, wait. After Sandzak!!
(Sandzaki, 15 September 2014 15:39)

"Sandzak" are three impoverished municipalities in Serbia that do in fact border Bosnia, but the part of Bosnia they border is in fact Republika Srpska. There is no geographical link from the Serbian Muslims and the ones in Bosnia. Such a state has no prospects of ever materializing.

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 18
Nenad

pre 9 godina

B92, you're degrading your international credibility when you publish all this nonsense about RS independence. Anyone who knows anything about Bosnia is well aware that RS has a snowball's chance in hell of peaceful secession, and that Dodik only mentions this possibility in a pathetic effort to get votes. Instead, we'd prefer if you'd post articles about political and economic progress (or lack thereof) in RS.

Preporučujem 21 Ne preporučujem 20
Naim

pre 9 godina

So funny to compare Bosnia to Scotland?????
This guy is a kids game playing. Scotland has join in the union 397 years a go after giving up the independence in favour of the union. While your so called RS has committed genocide to get the hardly standing autonomy never more then this I am sure.
UK is the most democratic place on earth and let's it's people to say what they want in this case with Scotland which the referendum will go in favour of the union that's for sure.
And your so called RS will take generations to become a kind of place as Scotland.

Preporučujem 18 Ne preporučujem 18
FREEEDOM

pre 9 godina

SONS OF SCOTLAND! I AM WILLIAM WALLACE!!

(note, the principle here is the right to self-determination. the simple fact that it is allowed in Scotland should also be recognized as a right to Rep. Srpska)

The US, Canada and Australia broke away from the UK and are doing great without it.

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 7
Bob

pre 9 godina

There is no comparison between what's happening in Scotland and what's happening in Bosnia.

By no stretch of the imagination is one a precedent for the other.

Scottish separation is not based on a racist assessment, neither is it based on any bigoted violence perpetrated on another group.

Scotland chose to join the UK for economic reasons and may choose to leave on a similar basis. Nationalist emotions are present, but only based on pride, never based on the kinds of hatred seen in Bosnia.

Also, Scotland is not an economic and political basket case dependent on the interventions of other countries. Bosnia is.

Preporučujem 13 Ne preporučujem 16
Nenad

pre 9 godina

B92, you're degrading your international credibility when you publish all this nonsense about RS independence. Anyone who knows anything about Bosnia is well aware that RS has a snowball's chance in hell of peaceful secession, and that Dodik only mentions this possibility in a pathetic effort to get votes. Instead, we'd prefer if you'd post articles about political and economic progress (or lack thereof) in RS.

Preporučujem 21 Ne preporučujem 20
Ari Gold

pre 9 godina

Also, Scotland is not an economic and political basket case dependent on the interventions of other countries. Bosnia is.
(Bob, 15 September 2014 13:31)

This is particularly why Bosnia will fall apart. The country is artificially constructed, and is held together by outside money. As this money started to dry up in 2006, it became apparent that Republika Srpska would work towards independence, but also the Croats have increasingly voiced a need for their own entity.

While your so called RS has committed genocide to get the hardly standing autonomy never more then this I am sure.
(Naim, 15 September 2014 15:47)

Genocide? In Sarajevo there were 100, 000 Serbs living there before the war. Now, Turkish and Chinese citizens make up a larger minority in Sarajevo than Serbs do. Is that not genocide? Get over it, the war had both sides committ atrocities including the Bosnian Muslim side receiving help from globe-trotting jihadists like the ones the West is fighting in Iraq today.

Hey, wait. After Sandzak!!
(Sandzaki, 15 September 2014 15:39)

"Sandzak" are three impoverished municipalities in Serbia that do in fact border Bosnia, but the part of Bosnia they border is in fact Republika Srpska. There is no geographical link from the Serbian Muslims and the ones in Bosnia. Such a state has no prospects of ever materializing.

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 18
Naim

pre 9 godina

So funny to compare Bosnia to Scotland?????
This guy is a kids game playing. Scotland has join in the union 397 years a go after giving up the independence in favour of the union. While your so called RS has committed genocide to get the hardly standing autonomy never more then this I am sure.
UK is the most democratic place on earth and let's it's people to say what they want in this case with Scotland which the referendum will go in favour of the union that's for sure.
And your so called RS will take generations to become a kind of place as Scotland.

Preporučujem 18 Ne preporučujem 18
FREEEDOM

pre 9 godina

SONS OF SCOTLAND! I AM WILLIAM WALLACE!!

(note, the principle here is the right to self-determination. the simple fact that it is allowed in Scotland should also be recognized as a right to Rep. Srpska)

The US, Canada and Australia broke away from the UK and are doing great without it.

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 7
Bob

pre 9 godina

There is no comparison between what's happening in Scotland and what's happening in Bosnia.

By no stretch of the imagination is one a precedent for the other.

Scottish separation is not based on a racist assessment, neither is it based on any bigoted violence perpetrated on another group.

Scotland chose to join the UK for economic reasons and may choose to leave on a similar basis. Nationalist emotions are present, but only based on pride, never based on the kinds of hatred seen in Bosnia.

Also, Scotland is not an economic and political basket case dependent on the interventions of other countries. Bosnia is.

Preporučujem 13 Ne preporučujem 16
Ari Gold

pre 9 godina

LK, 15 September 2014 18:58)

But wasn't it nationalist when Bosnian Muslims wanted to separate from Yugoslavia and live in a Bosniak dominated state? Bosniaks didn't say "fuck nationalism" when they used their majority in this artificial entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina to elect a radical Islamist-salafist Alija Izetbegovic who wrote the Islamic Declaration, his mein kampf.

You can't just open the flood-gates of nationalism and then choose when to shut it off. As if the Serbian community which has always been present in this territory called Bosnia-Herzegovina was going to allow you to separate from a state union with Serbia without trying to form a state of their own- for the sake of their survival.

RS is an artificial entity, but so is the entire idea of a Bosnian nation-state. And just like there are places in RS that were cleansed of Bosniaks, there are places in the Federation that were cleansed of Serbs. It was an extremely unfortunate war. Maybe if the Bosniaks didn't open the floodgates to hell and empower a Muslim radical to be their first President, it wouldn't have came to that.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 7
LK

pre 9 godina

RS was built by ethnic cleansing and genocide and will never be independent or part of Serbia. Get over it. How about spending the time and energy on things like jobs, fighting corruption, creating a new Constitution, and building a better life for all Bosnians, whether they are ethnic Serb, Croat, Bosniak, Roma, or Jew? Fuck the cancer of nationalism.

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 8
njegos

pre 9 godina

From icj1: "Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession"."

Yugoslavia's constitution allowed for secession only if the majority of the country voted for it. No such vote ever took place. Only referendums in Croatia where Croats were the majority and Bosnia where Muslims were the majority. The Yugoslav constitution was violated as was international law. Plain facts.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 7
Peggy

pre 9 godina

UK is the most democratic place on earth and let's it's people to say what they want in this case with Scotland which the referendum will go in favour of the union that's for sure.
And your so called RS will take generations to become a kind of place as Scotland.
(Naim, 15 September 2014 15:47)
=========================
So you're saying that Bosnia is not democratic and will not allow it's people to decide their own fate? Well said. I agree.
Muslims and Croats didn't ask Yogoslavia's permission to separate and you want RS to? Get real.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 12
Kosovo_Polje1389

pre 9 godina

RS will never become independent, this is a political stunt by the paprika salesman Dodik (he actually was one before the war). When he is crying poor, he threatens to declare independence, but when his back pocket is filled with checks from the EU and USA, he suddenly calms down, WOW, what a coincidence! He is a true Serb politician hahahha

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 9
icj1

pre 9 godina

Muslims and Croats didn't ask Yogoslavia's permission to separate
(Peggy, 15 September 2014 22:58)

You are correct; Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 8
Adi

pre 9 godina

One thing people outside of the Balkans need to understand, the Serbs were not the only ones committing these war crimes, absolutely everyone did. It just depends what part of ex-yugoslavia you were in at the time. The country is very rich in different ethnic backgrounds. They managed to live together successfully for 50+ years with no problems. Bosniaks would attend Serbian Slavas (Day of the households saint), Serbs would come and eat for eid, they would all spend christmas together. All of a sudden two to three politicians managed to convince everyone in the region that they are different and that each is threatened. Before Islam, Bosniaks were Croats or Serbs and even Turks which is more unlikely and even before that they were Slavs. Before Orthodoxy, Serbs were Slavs. Before Catholicism, Croats were Slavs. In the end here we all share the same ancestors yet everyone fails to understand that and can only see what their televisions say about everything happening and what corrupt politicians say. I strongly, as a Serb/Bosniak hybrid, support RS remaining within Bosnia because those are still my people and a politician will never change my view on that. Take away our religion and our borders and we are all human. I understand that this is a very controversial topic, but to me they will always be my brothers.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 8
marKo

pre 9 godina

If the Bosnian Federation never gives Serbs in RS a reason to want to be part of Bosnia, the Serbs will continue to want to separate. People hurl nothing but insults on RS, blaming even people who were not born yet for war crimes. Why would a 20 year old voter in RS want to be part of a Country that despises his ethnicity and calls him a war criminal?

Eventually there is either going to be a reconciliation or a separation. There is no political interest in the Federation or RS for reconciliation. With a peaceful serperation, both the Federation and RS could move on, but the longer this takes the worse off for everyone.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 7
Chief Yellowhouse

pre 9 godina

It is not about whether RS is scotland.

It is about the ability of RS to follow the same path like Scotland.

And they will.
(scepticism, 15 September 2014 18:51)

And roberto, Bam Bam, Lenard......, like Cameron before them, will sing along with the best of Texas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4mBTjJ_Yrg

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 2
Peggy

pre 9 godina

So does that mean it is OK for Sandzak, Vojvodina & Presevo to turn around and say, " Hey to hell with Serbia " we want our Independence. The changing of borders is over, there will be no more creating new countries. The borders will stay as they are and that includes BiH.
(Bam Bam, 16 September 2014 03:47)
=================================
So who determines it's over? You? You think that now your lot has what they want, to Hell with everyone else.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 5
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 16 September 2014 05:22) Yogoslavia's (sic) constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

-----

icj1, your familiarity with SFRJ constitution law resembles your remarkable ignorance of the proceedings at the ICTY. Your remarks about session are reminiscent of your other legal lunatics, such as your refusal to acknowledge ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence, which reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 3
sj

pre 9 godina

(nenad, 15 september 2014 16:26)

Incorrect because Scotland’s referendum has huge implications throughout Europe including Bosnia. To allow the Scots to vote on independence but refuse, say the Catalonmians the same opportunity would be tantamount to racial discrimination.
On the issue of threats of war if RS decided to hold such a referendum is just a fanciful theory. Who would take up arms? Bosniaks or Croats? Please stop dreaming. Whilst the EU keeps pumping Euros into Bosnia RS remains there but the moment that stops it bye, bye Bosnia.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 4
njegos

pre 9 godina

icj1: You asked for a quote from the Yugoslav constitution proving that it was violated regarding illegal secession. Well, suck on this:
"Article 5
requires the consent of all republics and provinces before the
borders of Yugoslavia can be altered.49 Article 283 gives the Yugoslav
Assembly the power to determine alterations in the state's
boundaries. 50 Thus, the provisions of the constitution seem to
suggest that secession is possible if the federal government and
all of the republics and provinces agree to it."

Go back and do your homework.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 1
sj

pre 9 godina

(Bob, 15 September 2014 13:31)

Where did you study history to make such an outrageous claim as “Scotland chose to join the UK for economic reasons”? The Pristina school of goat herders? Try brute force and you might be getting a little warmer.

Is there any wonder that Albanians posting on B92 are a laughing stock since they never cease to come up with new ways of showing their ignorance.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 5
Peggy

pre 9 godina

RS was built by ethnic cleansing and genocide and will never be independent or part of Serbia. Get over it. How
===========================
Really fed up with listening to this rubbish. Only the Muslims, Croats and Albanians are saying this. Clearly it's not true, because the international community would never have let it happen if it were.
RS is real so get over it.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
Bam Bam

pre 9 godina

@ peggy...Muslims and Croats didn't ask Yogoslavia's permission to separate and you want RS to? Get real.

So does that mean it is OK for Sandzak, Vojvodina & Presevo to turn around and say, " Hey to hell with Serbia " we want our Independence. The changing of borders is over, there will be no more creating new countries. The borders will stay as they are and that includes BiH.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 8
Morning Shake

pre 9 godina

Why would a 20 year old voter in RS want to be part of a Country that despises his ethnicity and calls him a war criminal?

(marKo, 15 September 2014 19:05)

Because this is Balkans and this is what people do just like Serbs still complain about Germany or Ustas etc.

Also because there are Serbs walking are that have raped and killed.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 4
sj

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:43)
Another brilliant piece of deduction on the part of the AE. How do you do it? You certainly are a legend in your own mind pratling on in another universe.
P.S AE=Albanian Einstein

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 2
Avni

pre 9 godina

Bosnian Serbs said the same about Crimea. They will be "closely watching" others and have empty dreams. Dayton agreement is the law. If Bosnians and Croats don't agree nothing will happen. Serbia is against also.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 9 godina

To allow the Scots to vote on independence but refuse, say the Catalonmians the same opportunity would be tantamount to racial discrimination.
(sj, 16 September 2014 06:33)

Hmm, I was trying to find where "Catalonmians" live in the UK for them to be discriminated against the Scots, but for some reason could not find them. Can you provide some more details about that, dear? Don't get me wrong, btw... I'd love for the Catalonmians to be independent if they so wish.
----------

On the issue of threats of war if RS decided to hold such a referendum is just a fanciful theory. Who would take up arms? Bosniaks or Croats? Please stop dreaming. Whilst the EU keeps pumping Euros into Bosnia RS remains there but the moment that stops it bye, bye Bosnia.
(sj, 16 September 2014 06:33)

That's great. That would be another act in support of Kosovo's independence plus another country will recognize Kosovo.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 4
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:30) Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

----

Hearsay evidence generally accepted by the ICTY:
http://www.icty.org/sid/7700

This is a press release by the ICTY summarizing the written decision. The link to this legal embarrassment on the ICTY Case website is missing. Please direct your inquiries regaring its absence to the (in)competency of the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 04:55) Well, if the Statute approved by the UNSC says so, than it is not the Trial Chamber that is “laughable” – that Chamber is following the Law (i.e. the Statute)
----------

The statute does not endorse hearsay evidence. If, as you claim, it does "say so", then please cite the specific portion of the written statute that affirms acceptance of hearsay evidence.

Your argument that the ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute", rather than well entrenched jurisprudence recognized by most reputable criminal judiciaries world wide, speaks volumes about the stupidity running amok in the trial chambers at the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:30) Evidence please... Ironically, you saying "reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades" is not evidence, but it is a perfect example of hearsay evidence. Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

----

In response to your persistent demand, I have provided direct and first-hand detailed text from the ICTY's own writings and website in my previous response to this and other B92 comment streams.

We all recognize the Fact: The ICTY generally accepts hearsay evidence.

You icj1, in contrast to the ICTY, refuse to accept hearsay evidence. Please note that the standard of evidence used in our simple discussion on B92 is closer to the standard of reputable jurists and is far superior to quality of evidence accepted by the quasi-judicial farce masquerading as a tribunal at the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 18 September 2014 06:01) The link above has not any writing stating a "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Nice try mate; as usual strong statements about a scandalous ICTY and then you come up with... nothing as evidence :)

----------

The link from the ICTY states that HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, in strong bold text emphasized by the ICTY, not me.


Your refusal to acknowledge this strong statement from the ICTY, is your problem, mate. I did not write this text. The ICTY wrote the strong statement. Why do you falsely attempt to label this legal lunacy as my writing. Look carefully: the link is to an ICTY website.

icj1 wrote "I said nowhere that ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute". You have difficulties in quoting the correct things, dear :)"

The ICTY idiotic decision to accept hearsay is based on "absence from statute". Do you agree or disagree with the decision to accept hearsay evidence? Please make up mind, you appear to be confused.


icj1 writes "Nope, YOU recognize that thing that is not even a fact, not ALL."

I'm not sure what this drivel means other than your desperate need for help in logic and/or English composition. However, I do recognize the ICTY written text: HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.

Your denial of this written fact, is your problem, mate :)
Thank you for helping me expose the lunatics of the ICTY, and the dishonesty of their apologists.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
Reader

pre 9 godina

Thank you for helping me expose the lunatics of the ICTY, and the dishonesty of their apologists.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

LOL, hold your horses there, you did no such thing. You just had an argument with icj1, which you may have won or not won. The argument was on a single aspect of the Hague court. The fact that they accept "hearsay as evidence" (I am assuming just for the sake of argument what you say) does not mean that all their evidence is hearsay.
It would be like somebody saying "All Serbs were using euros in 1994" just because one person on this forum received 20 euros in 1994 to participate in some demonstrations agains Milosevic. That is clearly not true.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(Reader, 18 September 2014 16:33) ... The fact that they accept "hearsay as evidence"...

----

Dear Reader, thank you for the affirmation that ICTY's acceptance of hearsay evidence is indeed a fact.

Please note that this fact is antithetical to most reputable jurists who, in contrast to the ICTY, generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.

I don't think your "Euro" analogy is appropriate. A more relevant analogy is that a group of UN bureaucrats in the Hague endorse the use of non-legal tender Monopoly play money, that no one else in the world accepts or recognizes.

Indeed, lots of laughs courtesy of the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

From icj1: "Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession"."

Yugoslavia's constitution allowed for secession only if the majority of the country voted for it. No such vote ever took place. Only referendums in Croatia where Croats were the majority and Bosnia where Muslims were the majority. The Yugoslav constitution was violated as was international law. Plain facts.
(njegos, 16 September 2014 13:55)

Thank you for offering your OPINION, not FACT, because you did not quote anything from the SRFJ Constitution. You screaming "plain fact" it does not make it so :)

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 6
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:30): Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

---
Here is a reference: http://www.icty.org/sid/7324

Precedence for the ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence was provided during the Tadic trial.
The decision rendered on 5 August 1996, Trial Chamber II (Judges McDonald, Stephen, Vohrah) rejected a motion filed by counsel for Mr. Tadic seeking to exclude hearsay evidence during the trial as a general rule.
In its decision, the Trial Chamber noted that the Tribunal's Rules do not specifically exclude hearsay evidence.

You strongly refuse to take to take my word, as the notion of generally accepting hearsay is contrary to your understanding of criminal justice. Realize that these are not my words. They are the writings of the ICTY.

Most reputable jurists, unlike the ICTY, generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

Another brilliant piece of deduction on the part of the AE. How do you do it? You certainly are a legend in your own mind pratling on in another universe.
P.S AE=Albanian Einstein
(sj, 17 September 2014 11:29)

Of course, I love being in the universe built by the CE of B92 forums sj - it's such a magnificent universe :)

P.S. CE = Chief Economist

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

icj1: You asked for a quote from the Yugoslav constitution proving that it was violated regarding illegal secession. Well, suck on this:
"Article 5
requires the consent of all republics and provinces before the
borders of Yugoslavia can be altered.49 Article 283 gives the Yugoslav
Assembly the power to determine alterations in the state's
boundaries. 50 Thus, the provisions of the constitution seem to
suggest that secession is possible if the federal government and
all of the republics and provinces agree to it."

Go back and do your homework.
(njegos, 17 September 2014 13:32)

sorry, dear, but you did not reject my quote "From icj1: "Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession"."

Bosnia chose to follow the Yogoslavia's constitution as per above... they did not do anything illegal by following Yogoslavia's constitution.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

In its decision, the Trial Chamber noted that the Tribunal's Rules do not specifically exclude hearsay evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 13 September 2014 01:14)

Well, if the Statute approved by the UNSC says so, than it is not the Trial Chamber that is “laughable” – that Chamber is following the Law (i.e. the Statute), but it is Russia which is “laughable” in proposing and approving that Court.
(icj1, 17 September 2014 04:55)

The statute does not endorse hearsay evidence. If, as you claim, it does "say so", then please cite the specific portion of the written statute that affirms acceptance of hearsay evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 15:37)

I did not claim what you say I claimed. Read what I said… there is an “if”. You brought up the Rules, not me. And there can be nothing wrong with the Trial Chamber applying the rules.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

Here is a reference: [link]

Precedence for the ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence was provided during the Tadic trial.

You strongly refuse to take to take my word, as the notion of generally accepting hearsay is contrary to your understanding of criminal justice. Realize that these are not my words. They are the writings of the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 15:05)

The link above has not any writing stating a "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Nice try mate; as usual strong statements about a scandalous ICTY and then you come up with... nothing as evidence :)
----------

Your argument that the ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute"
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 15:37)

I said nowhere that ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute". You have difficulties in quoting the correct things, dear :)
----------

We all recognize the Fact: The ICTY generally accepts hearsay evidence. (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 17:28)

Nope, YOU recognize that thing that is not even a fact, not ALL. You provided no ICTY writing whatsoever saying that ICTY “generally accepts hearsay evidence”. You continue having challenges with quotations :)

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 18 September 2014 06:01) The link above has not any writing stating a "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Nice try mate; as usual strong statements about a scandalous ICTY and then you come up with... nothing as evidence :)
----------

The link from the ICTY states that HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, in strong bold text emphasized by the ICTY, not me.

Your refusal to acknowledge this strong statement from the ICTY, is your problem, mate. I did not write this text. The ICTY wrote the strong statement. Why do you falsely attempt to label this legal lunacy as my writing. Look carefully: the link is to an ICTY website.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

It’s the first time you mention “HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE”. So, I obviously could not have refused something that you had never mentioned before. I don’t the ability to travel in time :).

And there are a couple of other problems. First, “HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE” is not the same as "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Make up your mind on whether you want to debate about the former or the latter. Second, the link you quoted clearly states “Not an official document”. So, not sure it’s worth our time to debate something that ultimately is not an ICTY’s official document.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

icj1 wrote "I said nowhere that ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute". You have difficulties in quoting the correct things, dear :)"

The ICTY idiotic decision to accept hearsay is based on "absence from statute".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

Ok, that’s your statement not mine… I nowhere mentioned any "absence from statute".
----------

Do you agree or disagree with the decision to accept hearsay evidence? Please make up mind, you appear to be confused.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

Well, that’s not a question that can be answered in the abstract. You still have not shown a specific ICTY Decision accepting a specific “hearsay evidence” so we can make an informed argument on whether that Decision was right or wrong based on the arguments presented in the Decision.
----------

icj1 writes "Nope, YOU recognize that thing that is not even a fact, not ALL."

I'm not sure what this drivel means other than your desperate need for help in logic and/or English composition. However, I do recognize the ICTY written text: HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

That means that your statement “We all recognize the Fact: The ICTY generally accepts hearsay evidence” is false. Even you understood that as you now changed the tune to “HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE”.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

Your denial of this written fact, is your problem, mate :)
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

Well, YOU writing that ICTY “generally accepts hearsay evidence” does not make it an ICTY writing so there is no fact for me to deny :)
----------

Thank you for helping me expose the lunatics of the ICTY, and the dishonesty of their apologists.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

No problem mate… I’ll always help to expose the dishonesty of people like you quoting “ICTY writings” and then, when it is exposed that those writings were never written by ICTY, switch to other “ICTY writings”.
----------

most reputable jurists who, in contrast to the ICTY, generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 17:33)

Yes, I agree, ICTY agrees and everybody agrees to generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence. But that also means that rule is not categorical; in other words “generally” is not the same as “always” and “fundamental rule of evidence” does not mean that it is not “evidence” at all, just not a “fundamental” one.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 19 September 2014 04:15) Yes, I agree, ICTY agrees and everybody agrees to generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.

-----

Wrong, mate.
The ICTY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the rule against hearsay.

You and I may agree that reputable jurist recognize this rule, but the ICTY writes in strong and plain language that HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.

icj1 ignorantly claims "But that also means that rule is not categorical; in other words “generally” is not the same as “always”

Please note the writing in sub-Rule 89 (C) "... the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition"

Do you wish to deny these ICTY writings also? Not subject to any prohibition ... is quite consistent with fundamentally accepting hearsay evidence.

Keep denying and ignoring your obvious dishonesty.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

icj1 persistently claims "You still have not shown a specific ICTY Decision accepting a specific “hearsay evidence” so we can make an informed argument on whether that Decision was right or wrong based on the arguments presented in the Decision."

--------------


The written decision in the Blaksic case where the trial chamber interpreted subrule 89c: "Trial Chamber considered that the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition".

icj1, your complaint about the lack of any legal reasoning or informed argument about this ICTY decision is entirely misdirected. Please address your complaint to the ringmaster at the ICTY circus.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

icj1 ignorantly claims "But that also means that rule is not categorical; in other words “generally” is not the same as “always”
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 13:59)

Well, you used the word “generally” so if you are ignorant, not much I can do – I just quoted you.
----------

Please note the writing in sub-Rule 89 (C) "... the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition". Do you wish to deny these ICTY writings also? Not subject to any prohibition ...
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 13:59)

No, that's not the 89(C) writing http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Rules_procedure_evidence/IT032Rev49_en.pdf
----------

is quite consistent with fundamentally accepting hearsay evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 13:59)

“fundamentally accepting hearsay evidence” is not the same thing as “generally accepting hearsay evidence”. Mate, make up your mind what you want to prove and show evidence to that effect. Otherwise you are all over the place and change statements every other post.
----------

The written decision in the Blaksic case where the trial chamber interpreted subrule 89c: "Trial Chamber considered that the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 15:19)

Well, that is not the same as “generally accepting hearsay evidence”. Mate, to make this simple for you: Is your position that hearsay evidence can NEVER be admitted?

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 20 September 2014 21:57): Is your position that hearsay evidence can NEVER be admitted?
-------------------------
My position: the lack of any rule against hearsay evidence is laughable.

Reputable jurists have been mocking the ICTY and their decision that "admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition".
This is the judges' interpretation of rule 89c. NOT mine. If you claim that 89c does enable admission of hearsay evidence without prohibition, then please do forward your complaint to the ICTY...

The lack of any prohibition to admitting hearsay evidence means many qualifiers are appropriate:

i.e the ICTY generally accepts hearsay, or the ICTY in most cases accepts hearsay, or the ICTY stupidly accepts hearsay, or the ICTY fundamentally accepts hearsay are ALL true. The analogy is similar to lifting speed limits on highways, such that you can drive 210 km/h or 250 km/h or 5 km/h. None of these are the same, but all are more dangerous than driving between 70 and 130 km/h, which is why many jurisdictions establish and enforce limits.

The lack of prohibition enables many possibilities and it is the ICTY that enforces NO PROHIBITION ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE, not me. I simply laugh at the lunacy and their apologists.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 16 September 2014 05:22) Yogoslavia's (sic) constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

-----

icj1, your familiarity with SFRJ constitution law resembles your remarkable ignorance of the proceedings at the ICTY. Your remarks about session are reminiscent of your other legal lunatics,
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 September 2014 19:26)

Yogoslavia's (sic, courtesy of our dear Peggy) constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

Not my fault why SFRJ's constitution stated what's in quotes above... Not much I can do if the your familiarity with SFRJ constitution law resembles your remarkable ignorance of the proceedings at the ICTY
----------

such as your refusal to acknowledge ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence, which reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 September 2014 19:26)

Evidence please... Ironically, you saying "reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades" is not evidence, but it is a perfect example of hearsay evidence. Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
Nenad

pre 9 godina

B92, you're degrading your international credibility when you publish all this nonsense about RS independence. Anyone who knows anything about Bosnia is well aware that RS has a snowball's chance in hell of peaceful secession, and that Dodik only mentions this possibility in a pathetic effort to get votes. Instead, we'd prefer if you'd post articles about political and economic progress (or lack thereof) in RS.

Preporučujem 21 Ne preporučujem 20
Naim

pre 9 godina

So funny to compare Bosnia to Scotland?????
This guy is a kids game playing. Scotland has join in the union 397 years a go after giving up the independence in favour of the union. While your so called RS has committed genocide to get the hardly standing autonomy never more then this I am sure.
UK is the most democratic place on earth and let's it's people to say what they want in this case with Scotland which the referendum will go in favour of the union that's for sure.
And your so called RS will take generations to become a kind of place as Scotland.

Preporučujem 18 Ne preporučujem 18
Ari Gold

pre 9 godina

Also, Scotland is not an economic and political basket case dependent on the interventions of other countries. Bosnia is.
(Bob, 15 September 2014 13:31)

This is particularly why Bosnia will fall apart. The country is artificially constructed, and is held together by outside money. As this money started to dry up in 2006, it became apparent that Republika Srpska would work towards independence, but also the Croats have increasingly voiced a need for their own entity.

While your so called RS has committed genocide to get the hardly standing autonomy never more then this I am sure.
(Naim, 15 September 2014 15:47)

Genocide? In Sarajevo there were 100, 000 Serbs living there before the war. Now, Turkish and Chinese citizens make up a larger minority in Sarajevo than Serbs do. Is that not genocide? Get over it, the war had both sides committ atrocities including the Bosnian Muslim side receiving help from globe-trotting jihadists like the ones the West is fighting in Iraq today.

Hey, wait. After Sandzak!!
(Sandzaki, 15 September 2014 15:39)

"Sandzak" are three impoverished municipalities in Serbia that do in fact border Bosnia, but the part of Bosnia they border is in fact Republika Srpska. There is no geographical link from the Serbian Muslims and the ones in Bosnia. Such a state has no prospects of ever materializing.

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 18
Bob

pre 9 godina

There is no comparison between what's happening in Scotland and what's happening in Bosnia.

By no stretch of the imagination is one a precedent for the other.

Scottish separation is not based on a racist assessment, neither is it based on any bigoted violence perpetrated on another group.

Scotland chose to join the UK for economic reasons and may choose to leave on a similar basis. Nationalist emotions are present, but only based on pride, never based on the kinds of hatred seen in Bosnia.

Also, Scotland is not an economic and political basket case dependent on the interventions of other countries. Bosnia is.

Preporučujem 13 Ne preporučujem 16
Peggy

pre 9 godina

UK is the most democratic place on earth and let's it's people to say what they want in this case with Scotland which the referendum will go in favour of the union that's for sure.
And your so called RS will take generations to become a kind of place as Scotland.
(Naim, 15 September 2014 15:47)
=========================
So you're saying that Bosnia is not democratic and will not allow it's people to decide their own fate? Well said. I agree.
Muslims and Croats didn't ask Yogoslavia's permission to separate and you want RS to? Get real.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 12
Kosovo_Polje1389

pre 9 godina

RS will never become independent, this is a political stunt by the paprika salesman Dodik (he actually was one before the war). When he is crying poor, he threatens to declare independence, but when his back pocket is filled with checks from the EU and USA, he suddenly calms down, WOW, what a coincidence! He is a true Serb politician hahahha

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 9
LK

pre 9 godina

RS was built by ethnic cleansing and genocide and will never be independent or part of Serbia. Get over it. How about spending the time and energy on things like jobs, fighting corruption, creating a new Constitution, and building a better life for all Bosnians, whether they are ethnic Serb, Croat, Bosniak, Roma, or Jew? Fuck the cancer of nationalism.

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 8
Bam Bam

pre 9 godina

@ peggy...Muslims and Croats didn't ask Yogoslavia's permission to separate and you want RS to? Get real.

So does that mean it is OK for Sandzak, Vojvodina & Presevo to turn around and say, " Hey to hell with Serbia " we want our Independence. The changing of borders is over, there will be no more creating new countries. The borders will stay as they are and that includes BiH.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 8
icj1

pre 9 godina

Muslims and Croats didn't ask Yogoslavia's permission to separate
(Peggy, 15 September 2014 22:58)

You are correct; Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 8
Adi

pre 9 godina

One thing people outside of the Balkans need to understand, the Serbs were not the only ones committing these war crimes, absolutely everyone did. It just depends what part of ex-yugoslavia you were in at the time. The country is very rich in different ethnic backgrounds. They managed to live together successfully for 50+ years with no problems. Bosniaks would attend Serbian Slavas (Day of the households saint), Serbs would come and eat for eid, they would all spend christmas together. All of a sudden two to three politicians managed to convince everyone in the region that they are different and that each is threatened. Before Islam, Bosniaks were Croats or Serbs and even Turks which is more unlikely and even before that they were Slavs. Before Orthodoxy, Serbs were Slavs. Before Catholicism, Croats were Slavs. In the end here we all share the same ancestors yet everyone fails to understand that and can only see what their televisions say about everything happening and what corrupt politicians say. I strongly, as a Serb/Bosniak hybrid, support RS remaining within Bosnia because those are still my people and a politician will never change my view on that. Take away our religion and our borders and we are all human. I understand that this is a very controversial topic, but to me they will always be my brothers.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 8
FREEEDOM

pre 9 godina

SONS OF SCOTLAND! I AM WILLIAM WALLACE!!

(note, the principle here is the right to self-determination. the simple fact that it is allowed in Scotland should also be recognized as a right to Rep. Srpska)

The US, Canada and Australia broke away from the UK and are doing great without it.

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 7
marKo

pre 9 godina

If the Bosnian Federation never gives Serbs in RS a reason to want to be part of Bosnia, the Serbs will continue to want to separate. People hurl nothing but insults on RS, blaming even people who were not born yet for war crimes. Why would a 20 year old voter in RS want to be part of a Country that despises his ethnicity and calls him a war criminal?

Eventually there is either going to be a reconciliation or a separation. There is no political interest in the Federation or RS for reconciliation. With a peaceful serperation, both the Federation and RS could move on, but the longer this takes the worse off for everyone.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 7
Ari Gold

pre 9 godina

LK, 15 September 2014 18:58)

But wasn't it nationalist when Bosnian Muslims wanted to separate from Yugoslavia and live in a Bosniak dominated state? Bosniaks didn't say "fuck nationalism" when they used their majority in this artificial entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina to elect a radical Islamist-salafist Alija Izetbegovic who wrote the Islamic Declaration, his mein kampf.

You can't just open the flood-gates of nationalism and then choose when to shut it off. As if the Serbian community which has always been present in this territory called Bosnia-Herzegovina was going to allow you to separate from a state union with Serbia without trying to form a state of their own- for the sake of their survival.

RS is an artificial entity, but so is the entire idea of a Bosnian nation-state. And just like there are places in RS that were cleansed of Bosniaks, there are places in the Federation that were cleansed of Serbs. It was an extremely unfortunate war. Maybe if the Bosniaks didn't open the floodgates to hell and empower a Muslim radical to be their first President, it wouldn't have came to that.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 7
njegos

pre 9 godina

From icj1: "Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession"."

Yugoslavia's constitution allowed for secession only if the majority of the country voted for it. No such vote ever took place. Only referendums in Croatia where Croats were the majority and Bosnia where Muslims were the majority. The Yugoslav constitution was violated as was international law. Plain facts.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 7
Peggy

pre 9 godina

RS was built by ethnic cleansing and genocide and will never be independent or part of Serbia. Get over it. How
===========================
Really fed up with listening to this rubbish. Only the Muslims, Croats and Albanians are saying this. Clearly it's not true, because the international community would never have let it happen if it were.
RS is real so get over it.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
icj1

pre 9 godina

From icj1: "Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession"."

Yugoslavia's constitution allowed for secession only if the majority of the country voted for it. No such vote ever took place. Only referendums in Croatia where Croats were the majority and Bosnia where Muslims were the majority. The Yugoslav constitution was violated as was international law. Plain facts.
(njegos, 16 September 2014 13:55)

Thank you for offering your OPINION, not FACT, because you did not quote anything from the SRFJ Constitution. You screaming "plain fact" it does not make it so :)

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 6
sj

pre 9 godina

(Bob, 15 September 2014 13:31)

Where did you study history to make such an outrageous claim as “Scotland chose to join the UK for economic reasons”? The Pristina school of goat herders? Try brute force and you might be getting a little warmer.

Is there any wonder that Albanians posting on B92 are a laughing stock since they never cease to come up with new ways of showing their ignorance.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 5
Peggy

pre 9 godina

So does that mean it is OK for Sandzak, Vojvodina & Presevo to turn around and say, " Hey to hell with Serbia " we want our Independence. The changing of borders is over, there will be no more creating new countries. The borders will stay as they are and that includes BiH.
(Bam Bam, 16 September 2014 03:47)
=================================
So who determines it's over? You? You think that now your lot has what they want, to Hell with everyone else.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 5
Avni

pre 9 godina

Bosnian Serbs said the same about Crimea. They will be "closely watching" others and have empty dreams. Dayton agreement is the law. If Bosnians and Croats don't agree nothing will happen. Serbia is against also.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 4
sj

pre 9 godina

(nenad, 15 september 2014 16:26)

Incorrect because Scotland’s referendum has huge implications throughout Europe including Bosnia. To allow the Scots to vote on independence but refuse, say the Catalonmians the same opportunity would be tantamount to racial discrimination.
On the issue of threats of war if RS decided to hold such a referendum is just a fanciful theory. Who would take up arms? Bosniaks or Croats? Please stop dreaming. Whilst the EU keeps pumping Euros into Bosnia RS remains there but the moment that stops it bye, bye Bosnia.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 9 godina

To allow the Scots to vote on independence but refuse, say the Catalonmians the same opportunity would be tantamount to racial discrimination.
(sj, 16 September 2014 06:33)

Hmm, I was trying to find where "Catalonmians" live in the UK for them to be discriminated against the Scots, but for some reason could not find them. Can you provide some more details about that, dear? Don't get me wrong, btw... I'd love for the Catalonmians to be independent if they so wish.
----------

On the issue of threats of war if RS decided to hold such a referendum is just a fanciful theory. Who would take up arms? Bosniaks or Croats? Please stop dreaming. Whilst the EU keeps pumping Euros into Bosnia RS remains there but the moment that stops it bye, bye Bosnia.
(sj, 16 September 2014 06:33)

That's great. That would be another act in support of Kosovo's independence plus another country will recognize Kosovo.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 4
Morning Shake

pre 9 godina

Why would a 20 year old voter in RS want to be part of a Country that despises his ethnicity and calls him a war criminal?

(marKo, 15 September 2014 19:05)

Because this is Balkans and this is what people do just like Serbs still complain about Germany or Ustas etc.

Also because there are Serbs walking are that have raped and killed.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 4
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 16 September 2014 05:22) Yogoslavia's (sic) constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

-----

icj1, your familiarity with SFRJ constitution law resembles your remarkable ignorance of the proceedings at the ICTY. Your remarks about session are reminiscent of your other legal lunatics, such as your refusal to acknowledge ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence, which reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades.

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 3
Chief Yellowhouse

pre 9 godina

It is not about whether RS is scotland.

It is about the ability of RS to follow the same path like Scotland.

And they will.
(scepticism, 15 September 2014 18:51)

And roberto, Bam Bam, Lenard......, like Cameron before them, will sing along with the best of Texas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4mBTjJ_Yrg

Preporučujem 7 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 16 September 2014 05:22) Yogoslavia's (sic) constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

-----

icj1, your familiarity with SFRJ constitution law resembles your remarkable ignorance of the proceedings at the ICTY. Your remarks about session are reminiscent of your other legal lunatics,
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 September 2014 19:26)

Yogoslavia's (sic, courtesy of our dear Peggy) constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession".

Not my fault why SFRJ's constitution stated what's in quotes above... Not much I can do if the your familiarity with SFRJ constitution law resembles your remarkable ignorance of the proceedings at the ICTY
----------

such as your refusal to acknowledge ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence, which reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 September 2014 19:26)

Evidence please... Ironically, you saying "reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades" is not evidence, but it is a perfect example of hearsay evidence. Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
sj

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:43)
Another brilliant piece of deduction on the part of the AE. How do you do it? You certainly are a legend in your own mind pratling on in another universe.
P.S AE=Albanian Einstein

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:30): Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

---
Here is a reference: http://www.icty.org/sid/7324

Precedence for the ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence was provided during the Tadic trial.
The decision rendered on 5 August 1996, Trial Chamber II (Judges McDonald, Stephen, Vohrah) rejected a motion filed by counsel for Mr. Tadic seeking to exclude hearsay evidence during the trial as a general rule.
In its decision, the Trial Chamber noted that the Tribunal's Rules do not specifically exclude hearsay evidence.

You strongly refuse to take to take my word, as the notion of generally accepting hearsay is contrary to your understanding of criminal justice. Realize that these are not my words. They are the writings of the ICTY.

Most reputable jurists, unlike the ICTY, generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:30) Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

----

Hearsay evidence generally accepted by the ICTY:
http://www.icty.org/sid/7700

This is a press release by the ICTY summarizing the written decision. The link to this legal embarrassment on the ICTY Case website is missing. Please direct your inquiries regaring its absence to the (in)competency of the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 04:55) Well, if the Statute approved by the UNSC says so, than it is not the Trial Chamber that is “laughable” – that Chamber is following the Law (i.e. the Statute)
----------

The statute does not endorse hearsay evidence. If, as you claim, it does "say so", then please cite the specific portion of the written statute that affirms acceptance of hearsay evidence.

Your argument that the ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute", rather than well entrenched jurisprudence recognized by most reputable criminal judiciaries world wide, speaks volumes about the stupidity running amok in the trial chambers at the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 17 September 2014 03:30) Evidence please... Ironically, you saying "reputable jurists have been mocking for close to two decades" is not evidence, but it is a perfect example of hearsay evidence. Evidence means YOU citing something from an ICTY judgement, opinion, order or decision accepting "hearsay evidence".

----

In response to your persistent demand, I have provided direct and first-hand detailed text from the ICTY's own writings and website in my previous response to this and other B92 comment streams.

We all recognize the Fact: The ICTY generally accepts hearsay evidence.

You icj1, in contrast to the ICTY, refuse to accept hearsay evidence. Please note that the standard of evidence used in our simple discussion on B92 is closer to the standard of reputable jurists and is far superior to quality of evidence accepted by the quasi-judicial farce masquerading as a tribunal at the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

icj1: You asked for a quote from the Yugoslav constitution proving that it was violated regarding illegal secession. Well, suck on this:
"Article 5
requires the consent of all republics and provinces before the
borders of Yugoslavia can be altered.49 Article 283 gives the Yugoslav
Assembly the power to determine alterations in the state's
boundaries. 50 Thus, the provisions of the constitution seem to
suggest that secession is possible if the federal government and
all of the republics and provinces agree to it."

Go back and do your homework.
(njegos, 17 September 2014 13:32)

sorry, dear, but you did not reject my quote "From icj1: "Bosnia did not have to ask for Yogoslavia's permission because Yogoslavia's constitution recognized the "right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession"."

Bosnia chose to follow the Yogoslavia's constitution as per above... they did not do anything illegal by following Yogoslavia's constitution.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 9 godina

In its decision, the Trial Chamber noted that the Tribunal's Rules do not specifically exclude hearsay evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 13 September 2014 01:14)

Well, if the Statute approved by the UNSC says so, than it is not the Trial Chamber that is “laughable” – that Chamber is following the Law (i.e. the Statute), but it is Russia which is “laughable” in proposing and approving that Court.
(icj1, 17 September 2014 04:55)

The statute does not endorse hearsay evidence. If, as you claim, it does "say so", then please cite the specific portion of the written statute that affirms acceptance of hearsay evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 15:37)

I did not claim what you say I claimed. Read what I said… there is an “if”. You brought up the Rules, not me. And there can be nothing wrong with the Trial Chamber applying the rules.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 18 September 2014 06:01) The link above has not any writing stating a "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Nice try mate; as usual strong statements about a scandalous ICTY and then you come up with... nothing as evidence :)

----------

The link from the ICTY states that HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, in strong bold text emphasized by the ICTY, not me.


Your refusal to acknowledge this strong statement from the ICTY, is your problem, mate. I did not write this text. The ICTY wrote the strong statement. Why do you falsely attempt to label this legal lunacy as my writing. Look carefully: the link is to an ICTY website.

icj1 wrote "I said nowhere that ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute". You have difficulties in quoting the correct things, dear :)"

The ICTY idiotic decision to accept hearsay is based on "absence from statute". Do you agree or disagree with the decision to accept hearsay evidence? Please make up mind, you appear to be confused.


icj1 writes "Nope, YOU recognize that thing that is not even a fact, not ALL."

I'm not sure what this drivel means other than your desperate need for help in logic and/or English composition. However, I do recognize the ICTY written text: HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.

Your denial of this written fact, is your problem, mate :)
Thank you for helping me expose the lunatics of the ICTY, and the dishonesty of their apologists.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(Reader, 18 September 2014 16:33) ... The fact that they accept "hearsay as evidence"...

----

Dear Reader, thank you for the affirmation that ICTY's acceptance of hearsay evidence is indeed a fact.

Please note that this fact is antithetical to most reputable jurists who, in contrast to the ICTY, generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.

I don't think your "Euro" analogy is appropriate. A more relevant analogy is that a group of UN bureaucrats in the Hague endorse the use of non-legal tender Monopoly play money, that no one else in the world accepts or recognizes.

Indeed, lots of laughs courtesy of the ICTY.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 2
njegos

pre 9 godina

icj1: You asked for a quote from the Yugoslav constitution proving that it was violated regarding illegal secession. Well, suck on this:
"Article 5
requires the consent of all republics and provinces before the
borders of Yugoslavia can be altered.49 Article 283 gives the Yugoslav
Assembly the power to determine alterations in the state's
boundaries. 50 Thus, the provisions of the constitution seem to
suggest that secession is possible if the federal government and
all of the republics and provinces agree to it."

Go back and do your homework.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

Another brilliant piece of deduction on the part of the AE. How do you do it? You certainly are a legend in your own mind pratling on in another universe.
P.S AE=Albanian Einstein
(sj, 17 September 2014 11:29)

Of course, I love being in the universe built by the CE of B92 forums sj - it's such a magnificent universe :)

P.S. CE = Chief Economist

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

Here is a reference: [link]

Precedence for the ICTY's general acceptance of hearsay evidence was provided during the Tadic trial.

You strongly refuse to take to take my word, as the notion of generally accepting hearsay is contrary to your understanding of criminal justice. Realize that these are not my words. They are the writings of the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 15:05)

The link above has not any writing stating a "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Nice try mate; as usual strong statements about a scandalous ICTY and then you come up with... nothing as evidence :)
----------

Your argument that the ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute"
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 15:37)

I said nowhere that ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute". You have difficulties in quoting the correct things, dear :)
----------

We all recognize the Fact: The ICTY generally accepts hearsay evidence. (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 September 2014 17:28)

Nope, YOU recognize that thing that is not even a fact, not ALL. You provided no ICTY writing whatsoever saying that ICTY “generally accepts hearsay evidence”. You continue having challenges with quotations :)

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 1
Reader

pre 9 godina

Thank you for helping me expose the lunatics of the ICTY, and the dishonesty of their apologists.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

LOL, hold your horses there, you did no such thing. You just had an argument with icj1, which you may have won or not won. The argument was on a single aspect of the Hague court. The fact that they accept "hearsay as evidence" (I am assuming just for the sake of argument what you say) does not mean that all their evidence is hearsay.
It would be like somebody saying "All Serbs were using euros in 1994" just because one person on this forum received 20 euros in 1994 to participate in some demonstrations agains Milosevic. That is clearly not true.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 18 September 2014 06:01) The link above has not any writing stating a "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Nice try mate; as usual strong statements about a scandalous ICTY and then you come up with... nothing as evidence :)
----------

The link from the ICTY states that HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, in strong bold text emphasized by the ICTY, not me.

Your refusal to acknowledge this strong statement from the ICTY, is your problem, mate. I did not write this text. The ICTY wrote the strong statement. Why do you falsely attempt to label this legal lunacy as my writing. Look carefully: the link is to an ICTY website.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

It’s the first time you mention “HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE”. So, I obviously could not have refused something that you had never mentioned before. I don’t the ability to travel in time :).

And there are a couple of other problems. First, “HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE” is not the same as "general acceptance of hearsay evidence". Make up your mind on whether you want to debate about the former or the latter. Second, the link you quoted clearly states “Not an official document”. So, not sure it’s worth our time to debate something that ultimately is not an ICTY’s official document.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

icj1 wrote "I said nowhere that ICTY judges' decisions are based on "absence from statute". You have difficulties in quoting the correct things, dear :)"

The ICTY idiotic decision to accept hearsay is based on "absence from statute".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

Ok, that’s your statement not mine… I nowhere mentioned any "absence from statute".
----------

Do you agree or disagree with the decision to accept hearsay evidence? Please make up mind, you appear to be confused.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

Well, that’s not a question that can be answered in the abstract. You still have not shown a specific ICTY Decision accepting a specific “hearsay evidence” so we can make an informed argument on whether that Decision was right or wrong based on the arguments presented in the Decision.
----------

icj1 writes "Nope, YOU recognize that thing that is not even a fact, not ALL."

I'm not sure what this drivel means other than your desperate need for help in logic and/or English composition. However, I do recognize the ICTY written text: HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

That means that your statement “We all recognize the Fact: The ICTY generally accepts hearsay evidence” is false. Even you understood that as you now changed the tune to “HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE”.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

Your denial of this written fact, is your problem, mate :)
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

Well, YOU writing that ICTY “generally accepts hearsay evidence” does not make it an ICTY writing so there is no fact for me to deny :)
----------

Thank you for helping me expose the lunatics of the ICTY, and the dishonesty of their apologists.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 11:08)

No problem mate… I’ll always help to expose the dishonesty of people like you quoting “ICTY writings” and then, when it is exposed that those writings were never written by ICTY, switch to other “ICTY writings”.
----------

most reputable jurists who, in contrast to the ICTY, generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 September 2014 17:33)

Yes, I agree, ICTY agrees and everybody agrees to generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence. But that also means that rule is not categorical; in other words “generally” is not the same as “always” and “fundamental rule of evidence” does not mean that it is not “evidence” at all, just not a “fundamental” one.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 19 September 2014 04:15) Yes, I agree, ICTY agrees and everybody agrees to generally recognize the rule against hearsay as a fundamental rule of evidence.

-----

Wrong, mate.
The ICTY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the rule against hearsay.

You and I may agree that reputable jurist recognize this rule, but the ICTY writes in strong and plain language that HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.

icj1 ignorantly claims "But that also means that rule is not categorical; in other words “generally” is not the same as “always”

Please note the writing in sub-Rule 89 (C) "... the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition"

Do you wish to deny these ICTY writings also? Not subject to any prohibition ... is quite consistent with fundamentally accepting hearsay evidence.

Keep denying and ignoring your obvious dishonesty.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

icj1 persistently claims "You still have not shown a specific ICTY Decision accepting a specific “hearsay evidence” so we can make an informed argument on whether that Decision was right or wrong based on the arguments presented in the Decision."

--------------


The written decision in the Blaksic case where the trial chamber interpreted subrule 89c: "Trial Chamber considered that the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition".

icj1, your complaint about the lack of any legal reasoning or informed argument about this ICTY decision is entirely misdirected. Please address your complaint to the ringmaster at the ICTY circus.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 9 godina

icj1 ignorantly claims "But that also means that rule is not categorical; in other words “generally” is not the same as “always”
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 13:59)

Well, you used the word “generally” so if you are ignorant, not much I can do – I just quoted you.
----------

Please note the writing in sub-Rule 89 (C) "... the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition". Do you wish to deny these ICTY writings also? Not subject to any prohibition ...
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 13:59)

No, that's not the 89(C) writing http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Rules_procedure_evidence/IT032Rev49_en.pdf
----------

is quite consistent with fundamentally accepting hearsay evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 13:59)

“fundamentally accepting hearsay evidence” is not the same thing as “generally accepting hearsay evidence”. Mate, make up your mind what you want to prove and show evidence to that effect. Otherwise you are all over the place and change statements every other post.
----------

The written decision in the Blaksic case where the trial chamber interpreted subrule 89c: "Trial Chamber considered that the admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 September 2014 15:19)

Well, that is not the same as “generally accepting hearsay evidence”. Mate, to make this simple for you: Is your position that hearsay evidence can NEVER be admitted?

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 1
Amnesty Yugoslavia

pre 9 godina

(icj1, 20 September 2014 21:57): Is your position that hearsay evidence can NEVER be admitted?
-------------------------
My position: the lack of any rule against hearsay evidence is laughable.

Reputable jurists have been mocking the ICTY and their decision that "admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition".
This is the judges' interpretation of rule 89c. NOT mine. If you claim that 89c does enable admission of hearsay evidence without prohibition, then please do forward your complaint to the ICTY...

The lack of any prohibition to admitting hearsay evidence means many qualifiers are appropriate:

i.e the ICTY generally accepts hearsay, or the ICTY in most cases accepts hearsay, or the ICTY stupidly accepts hearsay, or the ICTY fundamentally accepts hearsay are ALL true. The analogy is similar to lifting speed limits on highways, such that you can drive 210 km/h or 250 km/h or 5 km/h. None of these are the same, but all are more dangerous than driving between 70 and 130 km/h, which is why many jurisdictions establish and enforce limits.

The lack of prohibition enables many possibilities and it is the ICTY that enforces NO PROHIBITION ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE, not me. I simply laugh at the lunacy and their apologists.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0