Defense: No evidence of genocide

"the whole Serbian nation"

What ridiculousness. A man, Radovan Karadzic, is in the dock, not some ephemeral concept as "nation" is.

Who does he think appointed him as the anthropomorphisation of the Serbian nation? Or, does he feel entitled to do that all by himself?

@Danilo

If it wasn't for this man and Mladic the Republic of Srpska would not exist like it does today! And there would of been a repeat of what happened to Serbs in Bosnia during WWII mass genocide of Serbs from Bosnia! IZETBEGOVIC IS TO BLAME FOR ALL OF THIS AND THE REST!

ZIVEO RATKO MLADIC I KARADZIC!

Indeed, every Serb is, as far as NATO and the anglo-american aggressors are concerned, a war criminal, a villain and guilty for whatever NATO claims, for being what he is.

Those, like "Danilo" who believe anything western media shoves down his throat and recognize the atomic waste (D.U) NATO dropped on us (and every other people US has bombed to stone age for geo-political reasons) as well deserved but necessary "blessings from above" and "holy baptizing water of democracy" and who also reject their culture, tradition and religion and together with their western "friends" in the NGO community, spit their family, country and history in the face, are free of sins and untermenschen no more. Where have we seen this behaviour before...

@Danilo

If it wasn't for this man and Mladic the Republic of Srpska would not exist like it does today! And there would of been a repeat of what happened to Serbs in Bosnia during WWII mass genocide of Serbs from Bosnia! IZETBEGOVIC IS TO BLAME FOR ALL OF THIS AND THE REST!

ZIVEO RATKO MLADIC I KARADZIC!
(NjegosUK, 3 October 2014 13:02)

ej njegosh, did you you just woken up from dead sleep??? shame on you. you will not succeed with your fantasy.

Who were the 26 witnesses that testified that he had no knowledge of the seemingly well organized liquidation of 7,000 - 8,000 Muslim men and boys in an enclave closely monitored by UNPROFOR? I realize that Karadzic and Mladic had their differences, but even if Mladic were acting without Karadzic's input, it seems highly implausible that the developments in Srebrenica would have passed unnoticed by Karadzic - or any other senior Serbian politician, such as Milosevic, to whom the UN and Contact Group would often turn for help in crisis situations.

If it wasn't for this man and Mladic the Republic of Srpska would not exist like it does today! And there would of been a repeat of what happened to Serbs in Bosnia during WWII mass genocide of Serbs from Bosnia! IZETBEGOVIC IS TO BLAME FOR ALL OF THIS AND THE REST!
(NjegosUK, 3 October 2014 13:02)

So, you are saying that Izetbegovic is to blame for an HYPOTHETICAL genocide of Serbs that could have happened, but those responsible for a genocide that ACTUALLY happened (like the one in Srebrenica according to the UN) are not to blame!!! Mate, do you grasp the nonsense that you are writing?!

The rules of evidence at the ICTY are laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 5 October 2014 03:33)

So, are you saying that Russia & co (as ICTY's superior) is laughable for not addressing such situation?
----------

In contrast to the legal norms of most criminal courts, the ICTY has no rule against hearsay
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 5 October 2014 03:33)

By "rule against hearsay" do you mean that hearsay evidence is never admissible ?
----------

and reputable jurists have been mocking this circus for nearly two decades.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 5 October 2014 03:33)

I think the world can certainly survive with "reputable jurist" Amnesty Yugoslavia mocking ICTY for nearly two decades :)

(sj, 6 October 2014 12:40
The court dismissed the claims against SERBIA not RS nor people Serb ethniticity. The court also ruled that genocide did occur and therefore the tribunal must take that into consideration. They will consider that more strongly than an "sj opinion" as they probably do not read B92. Also comments on their literacy just shows the lack of it on your part.
You may not agree with their opinions nor actions, but that is probably more due to the difference in degree of education and knowledge and a misconception that Serbs are without sin.

The problem with the term genocide only relates to semi literate Albanians. On the one hand their beloved International Court dismissed all actions against Serbia over Bosnia’s claim of genocide but the Hague tribunal has a different interpretation to that meaning which is if you’re a Serb then it guilty and life in prison. Funny how the Tribunal uses hearsay and unsubstantiated evidence in court to convict Serbs, but its the revolving door for Croats, Bosniaks and albos.
The Tribunal cannot prove genocide because there was no systematic murder of people that corresponds to the definition of that word – Rawanda was genocide but Bosnia was not. Well in a normal court you cant but everything is possible at the Tribunal where even the judiciary are barely literate themselves.
(sj, 6 October 2014 12:40)

As usual you compare apples, oranges, bananas, and cucumbers and conclude that there were euros in 1994. Let me help you sj :). There are two tribunals, ICTY and Hague. ICTY deals with issues between countries. This is where Vuk "over my dead body" Jeremic took the issue of Kosovo's independence declaration and lost it. Where Bosnia took Serbia to court. Then, there is the Hague, which deals with war crimes. The article is talking about the Hague. Now, homework for you: guess which one has ruled that genocide happened in Srebrenica.

By the way, how did you spend those euros in 1994? Who took them?

(sj, 7 October 2014 09:52)
Why do you call others illiterate?? Take a hard look in the mirror, you have to be in the top 3 posters of un substantiated, un proven and just plain wrong nonfactual bs here.
What court ruled genocide did not take place?? The ICTY ruled that Srebrenica was an act of genocide. Serbia and Montenegro as it was called at the time were ruled not directly responsible. RS and its leaders Karadzic and Mladic included have not been ruled not responsible.
With your track record of inaccuracies, it is doubtful any Albanian or anyone else for that matter feels your derogatory comments can be taken seriously.

Indeed, every Serb is, as far as NATO and the anglo-american aggressors are concerned, a war criminal, a villain and guilty for whatever NATO claims, for being what he is.
(fas, 3 October 2014 12:59)

Nope, you are saying that. And I don't get why you want to implicate the Serb nation with crimes allegedly committed by one or some individuals!!! Criminal responsibility is individual not collective and it's not Serbia that is in the dock.

The rules of evidence at the ICTY are laughable. In contrast to the legal norms of most criminal courts, the ICTY has no rule against hearsay and reputable jurists have been mocking this circus for nearly two decades.

From the article :

Robinson said that the prosecution could in no way prove that Karadzic had not intended to destroy the Muslims throughout Bosnia, which would be necessary as if to prove the liability of the genocide.

Did anyone notice the glaring double negative. Or, did Robinson actually mean that Karadzic was guilty of genocide.

(icj1, 7 October 2014 03:18) Do you mean that "hearsay evidence is never admissible" ? A simple "Yes" or "No" is sufficient.
---

Statutory exceptions first require a rule. The ICTY, laughably, HAS NO RULE AGAINST HEARSAY. Please ask the ICTY to define a rule against hearsay and then perhaps we may be able to proceed in logical step-wise fashion to discuss statutory exceptions.

The ICTY minimally should have included these definitions in the ICTY's own rule of evidence. The fact that you are asking me to do so, perfectly demonstrates (one of many) ICTY failures and disregard for legal norms.
---

(icj1, 7 October 2014 03:18) we need to make sure what exactly you mean otherwise it's like erecting a building on shaky foundations and you know what happens to that building...!
----------

Simple, first you must show me the ICTY rule against hearsay. Then I'll be glad to answer your question about statutory exceptions.

The lack of any foundation is exemplified by the ICTY's LACK of any rule against hearsay. Reputable jurists have been commenting on this crumbling judiciary for decades. Thank you for your help in highlighting the salient lack of legal foundation, particularly with regard to hearsay evidence, at the ICTY.

Is the president of the tribunal Russian? Does the ICTY follow Russia's political dictat, or as claimed by Judge Harhoff, is the ICTY and the tribunal president only subject to US political dictat?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 7 October 2014 15:50)

Well, the UN says that Russia did propose the court, approved it and continues to approve all judges who are guilty of such mortal sins that you described. It does not matter what citizenship the president of the Tribunal has. The question is who made him an ICTY judge because that entity that put him on the job is the one that controls him. As for Judge Harhoff, I agree with you that those are claims, not facts. Russia approving the judges is a fact, not a claim.
----------

I am sorry that you are not familiar with a jurisdiction called the "United States of America".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 7 October 2014 15:50)

Yeah, I’m sorry too but I can’t refer to jurisdictions like the one you mention which are considered evil by the most patriotic of Serbs. But, I guess, since you are forcing us to use evil as an example, I have to refer to it.
----------

You may wish to consult the US federal rules of evidence. Rule 802 is entitled "The Rule Against Hearsay".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 7 October 2014 15:50)

So, I consulted the rules of the evil (apologies again to the most patriotic of Serbs) and did not find any ICTY Rule, judgment, opinion, decision or order which is in contrast with Rule 802. So, what’s next, dear?!

(icj1, 5 October 2014 17:51) So, are you saying that Russia & co (as ICTY's superior) is laughable for not addressing such situation?
----------
If you imply it is the UN (I'm not familiar with the formal designation Russia and Co), then failure to address the situation is indeed laughable.
As claimed by one of the ICTY`s own Judges: members of the UN with the most influence on the ICTY have a political agenda inconsistent with legal norms. So yes, the political masters constitute another ring of tragic comedy in this circus.

Simple answer: Yes. Laughable court and laughable oversight, whatever you want to call it.


(icj1, 5 October 2014 17:51) By "rule against hearsay" do you mean that hearsay evidence is never admissible?
----------

I mean: as in most reputable criminal courts, there should be a rule against hearsay. icj1, you may wish to familiarize you with legal norms: In most criminal courts there is a rule against hearsay.

Laughably, the lack of rule at the ICTY means (as interpreted by the ICTY judges, not me) THERE IS NO PROHIBITION on HEARSAY EVIDENCE


(icj1, 5 October 2014 17:51) I think the world can certainly survive with "reputable jurist" Amnesty Yugoslavia mocking ICTY for nearly two decades.
-----
The world will survive despite the ICTY, which will soon join the historical dust heap of other quasi-judicial farces. In contrast to the ICTY, most of the surviving judiciaries will continue to implement a rule against hearsay.

(Mlstefanovic, 6 October 2014 13:53)
The thing that amazes me and I will never understand is those that weep for the treatment of Serbs in WWII, however, turn a deaf ear to the crimes that Serbs rendered on the Albanians in Kosovo.

It would seem natural that Serbia would have become a champion for human rights rather than one of Europes biggest violators.

If you imply it is the UN (I'm not familiar with the formal designation Russia and Co), then failure to address the situation is indeed laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 October 2014 19:41)

Well, feel free to complain to Russia which proposed the court, approved it and continues to approve its judges. We can't help you here :)
----------

I mean: as in most reputable criminal courts, there should be a rule against hearsay. icj1, you may wish to familiarize you with legal norms: In most criminal courts there is a rule against hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 October 2014 19:41)

You still did not answer the question of what you mean by "rule against hearsay". I could not find any criminal procedure statute in any country in the world which says there is a "rule against hearsay", which is why you need to define it. Do you mean that "hearsay evidence is never admissible" ? A simple "Yes" or "No" is sufficient. Before we move on to the next stage of what's laughable and what's not, we need to make sure what exactly you mean otherwise it's like erecting a building on shaky foundations and you know what happens to that building...!
----------

In contrast to the ICTY, most of the surviving judiciaries will continue to implement a rule against hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 October 2014 19:41)

Well, there is no contrast because you still have not clarified what you mean by "rule against hearsay"! Before you contrast things, their definitions must be clear!

The world will survive despite the ICTY, which will soon join the historical dust heap of other quasi-judicial farces.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 October 2014 19:41)

Well, that's your personal opinion, you are entitled to it but obviously it means nothing without supporting evidence - but at least it's spiritually enriching for you which is good for your health; so there is some achievement there :)

(Reader, 6 October 2014 14:52)

Once again semi litrate Albanians need a lesson in court procedure. If the a higher International court declares that genocide did not take place in Bosnia then the lesser courts do not declare the opposite. But knowing that the ICTY and Hague are American run what do you expect? Is it any wonder that no one country takes any notice of US court decsions?
On Kosovo independence???? What a joke, you Albos must be fuming at such a chalfbaked answer. Now they decided that it was not illegal to make such a declaration, but they NEVER stated that Kosovo was independent – this must bring the bile to your throats, but backward people would be happy with such a decsion.
and the 20 Euros I was paid in 1994 I gave to Arkan group to make sure that he got ride of as many oxygen thieves as possible from Kosovo.

(icj1, 7 October 2014 03:18) Well, feel free to complain to Russia which proposed the court, approved it and continues to approve its judges.
---

Complaints about the court have been the topic of discussion among legal experts for close to two decades. The review and judgement of the ICTY, and its disregard for legal norms is a matter of public debate. Why do you have such a fixation with Russia? Is the president of the tribunal Russian? Does the ICTY follow Russia's political dictat, or as claimed by Judge Harhoff, is the ICTY and the tribunal president only subject to US political dictat?
---

(icj1, 7 October 2014 03:18) I could not find any criminal procedure statute in any country in the world which says there is a "rule against hearsay"
---

I am sorry that you are not familiar with a jurisdiction called the "United States of America". You may wish to consult the US federal rules of evidence. Rule 802 is entitled "The Rule Against Hearsay".

(Reader, 6 October 2014 14:52) Let me help you... There are two tribunals, ICTY and Hague. ICTY deals with issues between countries...Then, there is the Hague, which deals with war crimes.

----

Dear Reader, Perhaps you may wish to clarify or seek additional reading. You are not alone as many experts are also confused about the legal foundations of the ICTY. It is interesting that you claim the ICTY "deals with issues between countries". Can you provide an example of inter-country issues? Are you referring to ICTY Judge Harhoff's analysis of the US political dictat on jurisdictions of the former Yugoslavia?

The Hague (Dutch: Den Haag) is not a court; it is a municipal jurisdiction in the Netherlands where the seat of the Dutch government and parliament, the Supreme Court, and the Council of State reside. The Hague is also home to many handsomely-paid bureaucrats some of whom work at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Perhaps you are confusing the "Hague" with some of these specific organizations?

(icj1, 8 October 2014 03:29) The question is who made him an ICTY judge because that entity that put him on the job is the one that controls him.

According to the ICTY statute, member states nominate judges from their jurisdiction. Fact: tribunal president Meron was nominated by the US, and not Russia. I am glad that you agree with Judge Harhhoff`s claim that the US indeed controls him. Next.
----------

(icj1, 8 October 2014 03:29) Yeah, I’m sorry too but I can’t refer to jurisdictions like the one you mention which are considered evil by the most patriotic of Serbs. But, I guess, since you are forcing us to use evil as an example, I have to refer to it.

I`m not sure what this drivel means, other than a pitiable example in simple rationale rebuttal.
Fact, you wrote: I could not find any criminal procedure statute in any country in the world which says there is a "rule against hearsay"

-----------
(icj1, 8 October 2014 03:29) So, I consulted the rules of the evil (apologies again to the most patriotic of Serbs) and did not find any ICTY Rule, judgment, opinion, decision or order which is in contrast with Rule 802. So, what’s next, dear?!

Rule 802 includes: “Hearsay is not admissible”; in contrast, the ICTY decision in the Blaskic case states: “Hearsay is admissible”.
That you fail to see the contrast is a fitting demonstration of your capabilities. Pitiful, or perhaps like the ICTY...laughable. Next, dear.

You have a lot to learn in life lad.
(sj, 8 October 2014 08:00)
One thing for sure, I won't be learning it from you. You are as predictable as the reaction of a dog when you hold out a pork chop. I ask you which court ruled Srebrenica was not a genocide as you claim, and since you cannot answer because it was not true, you jump on a totally different subject thinking you are somehow going to shock, intimidate or irritate me.
I will let you in on a little secret that no one knows (wink, wink) the subject that you just revealed for the first time to the world here on B92 has already been published in about 40,000 news sources throughout the world. But there is one little detail we are not talking dollar for dollar here we are talking about adjusted numbers with parity pricing.
Now do I give a rats a--, simply no, I am living the same today as I did yesterday, and will be the same tomorrow.
A good thing out of this maybe China will pay dues greater than 5% of the UN budget and maybe the US will pay less than the 22% they do today.

Now China has blossomed due to a capitalist economy which does not mesh very well with a communist society. Eventually, one or the other will have to overtake the other. Which will it be?
You are a child playing in a grown up world.
Still waiting on an answer to the question!

(pss, 8 October 2014 15:21) Now China has blossomed due to a capitalist economy which does not mesh very well with a communist society.

-----

Economy is one dimension of society. One may argue that China is more of a capitalist society than the US. Politically, power in both is similarly concentrated among a small elite and manifested as single party monopoly in China, and as a two party duopoly in the US.

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:33) So, both Rule 802 and ICTY are saying the same thing with different words (FYI, in case you are not aware, it is indeed possible to say the same thing with different words) that hearsay can sometime be admitted and some time can't be admitted - i.e. it's a case-by-case analysis.

Rule 802 and the Blaskic decision are factually different. Rule 802 REJECTS hearsay unless defined by specific statutory exceptions. In contrast, ICTY rules of evidence DO NOT have a rule against hearsay and in one early case where the principle of hearsay was questioned, the ICTY decided that “admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition in principle”.

For those that don’t understand the difference: In US federal court a defendant can object to hearsay. At the ICTY a defendant CAN NOT object to hearsay.
Apologists for the ICTY will attempt to tell you this is the same thing. Laughable.
---

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:33) hearsay can sometime be admitted and some time can't be admitted - i.e. it's a case-by-case analysis.

Can you substantiate this allegation: Has a judge, during presentation of evidence at the ICTY, sustained an objection to hearsay and rejected the admission of hearsay?

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) Oh, OK, sorry for my ignorance - so just the nomination by a UN member state is needed to be made an ICTY judge.
Apology accepted. However, it appears you need more help. Nomination is only a prerequisite. Meron was nominated by the US and elected by the UN. I’m still not sure why you are so obsessed with proving that Meron was only controlled Russia?
----------

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) I'm sure the most patriotic of Serbs will be glad to explain to you why the country you are taking as an example is evil :)
Why do you need third parties to explain your writings? You used the term evil and wrote that the example is evil, can you substantiate your own claim?
----------


(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) That's a logical fallacy. If there are exceptions, you can start with either a "rule against" or a "rule for" and still get to exactly the same result.
Perhaps with the convoluted (il)logic at the ICTY. Can you point to the specific parts of ICTY rules of evidence that allow us to evaluate the “rule for” and its statutory exceptions?

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) Oh, OK, sorry for my ignorance - so just the nomination by a UN member state is needed to be made an ICTY judge.
Apology accepted. However, it appears you need more help. Nomination is only a prerequisite. Meron was nominated by the US and elected by the UN. I’m still not sure why you are so obsessed with proving that Meron was only controlled Russia?
----------

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) I'm sure the most patriotic of Serbs will be glad to explain to you why the country you are taking as an example is evil :)
Why do you need third parties to explain your writings? You used the term evil and wrote that the example is evil, can you substantiate your own claim?
----------


(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) That's a logical fallacy. If there are exceptions, you can start with either a "rule against" or a "rule for" and still get to exactly the same result.
Perhaps with the convoluted (il)logic at the ICTY. Can you point to the specific parts of ICTY rules of evidence that allow us to evaluate the “rule for” and its statutory exceptions?

(icj1, 10 October 2014 04:14) Can you substantiate this allegation: Has a judge, during presentation of evidence at the ICTY, sustained an objection to hearsay and rejected the admission of hearsay?
I did not make the allegation above – note I used the word “can” not “has”.

Through your distinction between the word "can" and "has", a Judge "can" reject hearsay, but at the ICTY a Judge has not rejected hearsay.

Yes, the prolific use and absurd quantities of hearsay evidence admitted at the ICTY have shocked reputable jurists. Such farce is only possible at the ICTY and not in US federal court because Rule 802 is indeed different. Judges in the US routinely sustain objections to hearsay without hearing arguments; in contrast the ICTY Judges and routinely admit hearsay without sustaining or permitting objections.

Thank you for clarifying what "can" be done by reputable jurists and what "has" be done by ICTY judges.

(icj1, 10 October 2014 03:51) Oh, OK so I was correct then – Meron is approved by Russia (not just once, but several times) and thus controlled by Russia.
----------

Harhoff's wording regarding the control of Meron and the ICTY is: "the military establishment in leading states (such as USA...".

The US was specifically named, though his exemplification of US with the word "such" implies the list was not complete. That you also implicate Russia, which is a leading state with a military establishment, only substantiates Harhoff's claim. Farcical court controlled by leading states with military establishments.
Thank you.

Serbian Lands Flying Through the Clouds. The USA, England and Germany did a great job on negative propaganda against the Christian Eastern Orthodox Serbian people. The hate campaign financed by USA, England and Germany was very successful, Eastern Orthodox Christianity payed a devistating price in innocent Serbian blood and ancient home lands lost. The West's International Community wanted to turn the whole world against Serbia only because it was defending it self from the terror and encroachment of Islam. When the Roman Empire and Islam kill Eastern Orthodox Serbian people it is permitted and legal. On the other hand when the Eastern Orthodox Serbian tries to protect his people, freedom and country well then according to the International Community that is wrong, it is genocide, rape and any other crazy thing they can think up to make Serbia look guilty. I also question why are Serbian leaders captured and sent to other evil countries to suffer and be killed? Why is Serbia abandoning the ones who tried to save it's people from destruction? What has changed since Germanies instigation of the break up of Yugoslavia wars for the Serbian people. Every thing is just worse and down hill comming from the West, EU and International Community. Serbia lost enough already, no need to give any more to our ancient evil enemies, it will not benifit Serbia!!! Serbia needs to be United, All for One and One for All.

The problem with the term genocide only relates to semi literate Albanians. On the one hand their beloved International Court dismissed all actions against Serbia over Bosnia’s claim of genocide but the Hague tribunal has a different interpretation to that meaning which is if you’re a Serb then it guilty and life in prison. Funny how the Tribunal uses hearsay and unsubstantiated evidence in court to convict Serbs, but its the revolving door for Croats, Bosniaks and albos.
The Tribunal cannot prove genocide because there was no systematic murder of people that corresponds to the definition of that word – Rawanda was genocide but Bosnia was not. Well in a normal court you cant but everything is possible at the Tribunal where even the judiciary are barely literate themselves.

In memorya off 1,000,000 Serbs exterminated in world wor II.
O childhood memory, memory of sorrows,without promising of any tomorrow's. Times of trials and despare, Enio-
Latino was hard to bear. It was defied by master race and death we did embrace,killing was done in a rush,they
Disposed our living ithe thrush.Godlinexecutioners went on prowl it became the drunken brawl. They purged our
Blood to cleanse the land,they killed us to peruse God,like he was a wagabond. It seemd like they killed The Lord
And beceaed masters of the World. The bloodied rivers where running red and the stench of decaying dead.
To survive it was epokaliptic plight! O sorrows of our sorrows, you where our enemy's delight!

(pss, 7 October 2014 14:27)

For the past 2 years I have said that China is the No 1 world economy. Now if you still have trouble on that issue please forward all your complaints to your US Nobel Prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz because he let the proverbial cat out of the bag when arriving in Sydney Australia and repeated that same many times more during his lecture tour. In fact he said that China officially became No1 in September 2014 or when the west could not hide the fact any more.
Stiglitz said that China should not have reached No 1 until 2070 or 2080, but the US government has jumped over the cliff of its own free will.
You have a lot to learn in life lad.

According to the ICTY statute, member states nominate judges from their jurisdiction. Fact: tribunal president Meron was nominated by the US, and not Russia.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 8 October 2014 14:45)

Oh, OK, sorry for my ignorance - so just the nomination by a UN member state is needed to be made an ICTY judge. EUREKA, that's great! We have the solution, then. Serbia can make some Serbs ICTY judges by just nominating them and all problems that we're discussing here will be solved!
----------

I am glad that you agree with Judge Harhhoff`s claim that the US indeed controls him. Next.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 8 October 2014 14:45)

I agreed that Judge Harhhoff made a claim. It's unfortunate that that's not a fact, but just a claim :)
----------

I`m not sure what this drivel means, other than a pitiable example in simple rationale rebuttal.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 8 October 2014 14:45)

I'm sure the most patriotic of Serbs will be glad to explain to you why the country you are taking as an example is evil :)
----------

The ICTY, laughably, HAS NO RULE AGAINST HEARSAY. Please ask the ICTY to define a rule against hearsay and then perhaps we may be able to proceed in logical step-wise fashion to discuss statutory exceptions.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 7 October 2014 16:07)

That's a logical fallacy. If there are exceptions, you can start with either a "rule against" or a "rule for" and still get to exactly the same result.

Rule 802 includes: “Hearsay is not admissible”; in contrast, the ICTY decision in the Blaskic case states: “Hearsay is admissible”.
That you fail to see the contrast is a fitting demonstration of your capabilities. Pitiful, or perhaps like the ICTY...laughable. Next, dear.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 8 October 2014 14:45)

Yep, and next is that the above is a nice a try for a novice, but unfortunately doomed to fail as a legal argument. Because Rule 802 includes other things, as well, which you (or your "reputable jurists") conveniently forgot. Rule 802 says:

"Hearsay is not admissible UNLESS any of the following provides
otherwise:
- a federal statute;
- these rules; or
- other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.
(As amended Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)"

(emphasis added by me in case you missed it)

ICTY's Blaskic decision starts with "admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition in principle" but then makes exceptions as to "relevance and probative value". So, both Rule 802 and ICTY are saying the same thing with different words (FYI, in case you are not aware, it is indeed possible to say the same thing with different words) that hearsay can sometime be admitted and some time can't be admitted - i.e. it's a case-by-case analysis.

So, now that we have the entire Rule 802, which is the specific piece of evidence that ICTY admitted in the Blaskic case or, for that matter, in any other case in contrast with Rule 802?

For the past 2 years I have said that China is the No 1 world economy
(sj, 8 October 2014 08:00)

I was telling this news to a friend of mine from Qatar and it went like this:

me: "the CE of B92 forums sj revealed to the world that China is the No 1 world economy; you should move to China";

him: "but the average resident here (Qatar) has a GDP per capita (at PPP) which is 12x higher than the average Chinese resident";

me: "well, but China's total GDP (at PPP) is 54x higher than Qatar's"

him: "but how does that help the average individual?"

me: "well, being in China poor (on average) is not a problem because think about the immense spiritual joy and prestige of living in the largest world economy - that has no price"

after I said that, he moved to China and became poor (like the average Chinese resident) but proud to be part of the largest world economy - hurrah!!!


P.S. CE = Chief Economist

Economy is one dimension of society. One may argue that China is more of a capitalist society than the US. Politically, power in both is similarly concentrated among a small elite and manifested as single party monopoly in China, and as a two party duopoly in the US.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 8 October 2014 17:38
Actually you said nothing! The capitalistic leaders in China are not the same group as the communist leaders which is why you see the billionaires in China securing exit strategies for them and families and as much wealth as possible, should it become necessary.
Actually, it would be better in my opinion if we had a strong third party but people here align themselves more to either ideology of one or the other. But how is a system like in Serbia where you have 20 parties and in the end you do not have a majority, so then the little parties jump on board say the SNS, they do not change the goals, but the leaders of the small parties will get some nonpolicy making positions in the government and you end up with a government run by basically one party that did not have the support of the majority of people as in Serbia with the SNS? Now you can add all the other letters behind it but it is still a SNS government ruling with a SNS platform.

But still my question was a capitalist economy is diametrically in opposition to the communist ideals. Eventually they one will have to overpower the other for survival. Which will it be?

(pss, 9 October 2014 12:30) But still my question was a capitalist economy is diametrically in opposition to the communist ideals. Eventually they one will have to overpower the other for survival. Which will it be?

----

I don't think that China is still implementing "communist" economic policy. Political "ideals" are different from economic "ideals". Neither political monopolies nor political duoploies (both of which are anti-competitive) have prevented the emergence and/or growth of capitalist economies.

(pss, 9 October 2014 12:30) Actually, it would be better in my opinion if we had a strong third party but people here align themselves more to either ideology of one or the other.

---

I agree, it would be better. Does the current US political system deliberately protect the duopoly? Does a "third" political party have the same rights as the duopolists? Can you enter a voting booth in the US and vote for all third party candidates with a single switch or is this political "freedom" only a privilege for the duopolists?

Apology accepted. However, it appears you need more help. Nomination is only a prerequisite. Meron was nominated by the US and elected by the UN. I’m still not sure why you are so obsessed with proving that Meron was only controlled Russia?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 12:04)

Oh, OK so I was correct then – Meron is approved by Russia (not just once, but several times) and thus controlled by Russia. It can’t be elected by the UN without being approved by Russia. And that’s important because, we’re told, that Russia is a friend of Serbs.
----------

Why do you need third parties to explain your writings? You used the term evil and wrote that the example is evil, can you substantiate your own claim?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 12:04)

Because I try to use reputable sources, like the most patriotic of Serbs or the CE of B92 forums sj. Using reputable sources is important for making an argument.

P.S. CE = Chief Economist

Perhaps with the convoluted (il)logic at the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 12:04)

There is nothing convoluted unless you hate thinking! Just some logical reasoning instead of copy-paste from “reputable jurists”. So, let’s see whether the order of first defining a rule against hearsay and only then proceed to discuss statutory exceptions matters or not. Let’s take an example that does first define a rule against hearsay and another one that doesn't and check if there is a difference. For example, let’s say evidence A and B are both hearsay evidence and we have the following rules:

Rule 1: Hearsay evidence is not admissible, except for B;
Rule 2: Hearsay evidence cannot be excluded in principle, except for A;

If you are presented with evidence B and you admit it, is that OK under Rule 1? Would you reach a different conclusion under Rule 2?
----------

Rule 802 and the Blaskic decision are factually different. Rule 802 REJECTS hearsay unless defined by specific statutory exceptions. In contrast, ICTY rules of evidence DO NOT have a rule against hearsay and in one early case where the principle of hearsay was questioned, the ICTY decided that “admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition in principle”.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 11:32)

If Rule 802 and the Blaskic decision are factually different, than not sure what’s the point of comparing the law applicable to different facts!!!

For those that don’t understand the difference: In US federal court a defendant can object to hearsay. At the ICTY a defendant CAN NOT object to hearsay.
Apologists for the ICTY will attempt to tell you this is the same thing. Laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 11:32)

Oh, I’m so disappointed I can’t get a laugh (it’s good for the health) because there is no rule at the ICTY that says “a defendant CAN NOT object to hearsay”. The rule at the ICTY is that “A Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value” and “A Chamber may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the need to ensure a fair trial”. If you say I want “evidence to be excluded because it is hearsay”, whether you are in the US or at the ICTY, the judge will say “let me see the evidence first and then I’ll decide whether to exclude it after hearing the arguments”. No judge, whether in the US or ICTY, will exclude hearsay evidence in principle, i.e. just because it is hearsay without first seeing/hearing it and listening to the arguments of the parties. Sorry, dear, if that comes as a shock to you after copy-pasting the edicts of “reputable jurists” :)

Can you substantiate this allegation: Has a judge, during presentation of evidence at the ICTY, sustained an objection to hearsay and rejected the admission of hearsay?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 11:32)

I did not make the allegation above – note I used the word “can” not “has”. I said that according to the US and ICTY’s rules “hearsay can sometime be admitted and sometime can't be admitted - i.e. it's a case-by-case analysis”. Do you dispute that? If you do, then you are either implying that “hearsay can never be admitted” or that “hearsay can always be admitted”. Is that simple – just let me know whether it’s the former or the latter!

Mate, reading your posts, it appears you are trying to prove that US’s Rule 802 and ICTY’s rules don’t contain the same words. There is no need for you to waste your time with that – I agree with you that they don’t contain the same words :)

---

I agree, it would be better. Does the current US political system deliberately protect the duopoly? Does a "third" political party have the same rights as the duopolists? Can you enter a voting booth in the US and vote for all third party candidates with a single switch or is this political "freedom" only a privilege for the duopolists?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 16:25)
Don't know what voting booths you are referring to but I have never seen a lever to vote strickly by party you have individual levers for each person.
But in a system as you say there would actually have to be a third party that would have to have representatives in each category, that is not true at this time.

(pss, 10 October 2014 20:39)Don't know what voting booths you are referring to but I have never seen a lever to vote strickly by party you have individual levers for each person.

It's called a "master lever" that facilitates straight-ticket voting. Some states have removed them, but "key" states such as Pennsylvania, Texas, New Jersey among others still use them.
I agree that there are other impediments to the establishment of a strong third party.

"the whole Serbian nation"

What ridiculousness. A man, Radovan Karadzic, is in the dock, not some ephemeral concept as "nation" is.

Who does he think appointed him as the anthropomorphisation of the Serbian nation? Or, does he feel entitled to do that all by himself?

@Danilo

If it wasn't for this man and Mladic the Republic of Srpska would not exist like it does today! And there would of been a repeat of what happened to Serbs in Bosnia during WWII mass genocide of Serbs from Bosnia! IZETBEGOVIC IS TO BLAME FOR ALL OF THIS AND THE REST!

ZIVEO RATKO MLADIC I KARADZIC!

Indeed, every Serb is, as far as NATO and the anglo-american aggressors are concerned, a war criminal, a villain and guilty for whatever NATO claims, for being what he is.

Those, like "Danilo" who believe anything western media shoves down his throat and recognize the atomic waste (D.U) NATO dropped on us (and every other people US has bombed to stone age for geo-political reasons) as well deserved but necessary "blessings from above" and "holy baptizing water of democracy" and who also reject their culture, tradition and religion and together with their western "friends" in the NGO community, spit their family, country and history in the face, are free of sins and untermenschen no more. Where have we seen this behaviour before...

Who were the 26 witnesses that testified that he had no knowledge of the seemingly well organized liquidation of 7,000 - 8,000 Muslim men and boys in an enclave closely monitored by UNPROFOR? I realize that Karadzic and Mladic had their differences, but even if Mladic were acting without Karadzic's input, it seems highly implausible that the developments in Srebrenica would have passed unnoticed by Karadzic - or any other senior Serbian politician, such as Milosevic, to whom the UN and Contact Group would often turn for help in crisis situations.

(Reader, 6 October 2014 14:52)

Once again semi litrate Albanians need a lesson in court procedure. If the a higher International court declares that genocide did not take place in Bosnia then the lesser courts do not declare the opposite. But knowing that the ICTY and Hague are American run what do you expect? Is it any wonder that no one country takes any notice of US court decsions?
On Kosovo independence???? What a joke, you Albos must be fuming at such a chalfbaked answer. Now they decided that it was not illegal to make such a declaration, but they NEVER stated that Kosovo was independent – this must bring the bile to your throats, but backward people would be happy with such a decsion.
and the 20 Euros I was paid in 1994 I gave to Arkan group to make sure that he got ride of as many oxygen thieves as possible from Kosovo.

Serbian Lands Flying Through the Clouds. The USA, England and Germany did a great job on negative propaganda against the Christian Eastern Orthodox Serbian people. The hate campaign financed by USA, England and Germany was very successful, Eastern Orthodox Christianity payed a devistating price in innocent Serbian blood and ancient home lands lost. The West's International Community wanted to turn the whole world against Serbia only because it was defending it self from the terror and encroachment of Islam. When the Roman Empire and Islam kill Eastern Orthodox Serbian people it is permitted and legal. On the other hand when the Eastern Orthodox Serbian tries to protect his people, freedom and country well then according to the International Community that is wrong, it is genocide, rape and any other crazy thing they can think up to make Serbia look guilty. I also question why are Serbian leaders captured and sent to other evil countries to suffer and be killed? Why is Serbia abandoning the ones who tried to save it's people from destruction? What has changed since Germanies instigation of the break up of Yugoslavia wars for the Serbian people. Every thing is just worse and down hill comming from the West, EU and International Community. Serbia lost enough already, no need to give any more to our ancient evil enemies, it will not benifit Serbia!!! Serbia needs to be United, All for One and One for All.

The rules of evidence at the ICTY are laughable. In contrast to the legal norms of most criminal courts, the ICTY has no rule against hearsay and reputable jurists have been mocking this circus for nearly two decades.

(pss, 7 October 2014 14:27)

For the past 2 years I have said that China is the No 1 world economy. Now if you still have trouble on that issue please forward all your complaints to your US Nobel Prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz because he let the proverbial cat out of the bag when arriving in Sydney Australia and repeated that same many times more during his lecture tour. In fact he said that China officially became No1 in September 2014 or when the west could not hide the fact any more.
Stiglitz said that China should not have reached No 1 until 2070 or 2080, but the US government has jumped over the cliff of its own free will.
You have a lot to learn in life lad.

The problem with the term genocide only relates to semi literate Albanians. On the one hand their beloved International Court dismissed all actions against Serbia over Bosnia’s claim of genocide but the Hague tribunal has a different interpretation to that meaning which is if you’re a Serb then it guilty and life in prison. Funny how the Tribunal uses hearsay and unsubstantiated evidence in court to convict Serbs, but its the revolving door for Croats, Bosniaks and albos.
The Tribunal cannot prove genocide because there was no systematic murder of people that corresponds to the definition of that word – Rawanda was genocide but Bosnia was not. Well in a normal court you cant but everything is possible at the Tribunal where even the judiciary are barely literate themselves.

@Danilo

If it wasn't for this man and Mladic the Republic of Srpska would not exist like it does today! And there would of been a repeat of what happened to Serbs in Bosnia during WWII mass genocide of Serbs from Bosnia! IZETBEGOVIC IS TO BLAME FOR ALL OF THIS AND THE REST!

ZIVEO RATKO MLADIC I KARADZIC!
(NjegosUK, 3 October 2014 13:02)

ej njegosh, did you you just woken up from dead sleep??? shame on you. you will not succeed with your fantasy.

The rules of evidence at the ICTY are laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 5 October 2014 03:33)

So, are you saying that Russia & co (as ICTY's superior) is laughable for not addressing such situation?
----------

In contrast to the legal norms of most criminal courts, the ICTY has no rule against hearsay
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 5 October 2014 03:33)

By "rule against hearsay" do you mean that hearsay evidence is never admissible ?
----------

and reputable jurists have been mocking this circus for nearly two decades.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 5 October 2014 03:33)

I think the world can certainly survive with "reputable jurist" Amnesty Yugoslavia mocking ICTY for nearly two decades :)

In memorya off 1,000,000 Serbs exterminated in world wor II.
O childhood memory, memory of sorrows,without promising of any tomorrow's. Times of trials and despare, Enio-
Latino was hard to bear. It was defied by master race and death we did embrace,killing was done in a rush,they
Disposed our living ithe thrush.Godlinexecutioners went on prowl it became the drunken brawl. They purged our
Blood to cleanse the land,they killed us to peruse God,like he was a wagabond. It seemd like they killed The Lord
And beceaed masters of the World. The bloodied rivers where running red and the stench of decaying dead.
To survive it was epokaliptic plight! O sorrows of our sorrows, you where our enemy's delight!

(icj1, 7 October 2014 03:18) Well, feel free to complain to Russia which proposed the court, approved it and continues to approve its judges.
---

Complaints about the court have been the topic of discussion among legal experts for close to two decades. The review and judgement of the ICTY, and its disregard for legal norms is a matter of public debate. Why do you have such a fixation with Russia? Is the president of the tribunal Russian? Does the ICTY follow Russia's political dictat, or as claimed by Judge Harhoff, is the ICTY and the tribunal president only subject to US political dictat?
---

(icj1, 7 October 2014 03:18) I could not find any criminal procedure statute in any country in the world which says there is a "rule against hearsay"
---

I am sorry that you are not familiar with a jurisdiction called the "United States of America". You may wish to consult the US federal rules of evidence. Rule 802 is entitled "The Rule Against Hearsay".

(icj1, 8 October 2014 03:29) The question is who made him an ICTY judge because that entity that put him on the job is the one that controls him.

According to the ICTY statute, member states nominate judges from their jurisdiction. Fact: tribunal president Meron was nominated by the US, and not Russia. I am glad that you agree with Judge Harhhoff`s claim that the US indeed controls him. Next.
----------

(icj1, 8 October 2014 03:29) Yeah, I’m sorry too but I can’t refer to jurisdictions like the one you mention which are considered evil by the most patriotic of Serbs. But, I guess, since you are forcing us to use evil as an example, I have to refer to it.

I`m not sure what this drivel means, other than a pitiable example in simple rationale rebuttal.
Fact, you wrote: I could not find any criminal procedure statute in any country in the world which says there is a "rule against hearsay"

-----------
(icj1, 8 October 2014 03:29) So, I consulted the rules of the evil (apologies again to the most patriotic of Serbs) and did not find any ICTY Rule, judgment, opinion, decision or order which is in contrast with Rule 802. So, what’s next, dear?!

Rule 802 includes: “Hearsay is not admissible”; in contrast, the ICTY decision in the Blaskic case states: “Hearsay is admissible”.
That you fail to see the contrast is a fitting demonstration of your capabilities. Pitiful, or perhaps like the ICTY...laughable. Next, dear.

(icj1, 5 October 2014 17:51) So, are you saying that Russia & co (as ICTY's superior) is laughable for not addressing such situation?
----------
If you imply it is the UN (I'm not familiar with the formal designation Russia and Co), then failure to address the situation is indeed laughable.
As claimed by one of the ICTY`s own Judges: members of the UN with the most influence on the ICTY have a political agenda inconsistent with legal norms. So yes, the political masters constitute another ring of tragic comedy in this circus.

Simple answer: Yes. Laughable court and laughable oversight, whatever you want to call it.


(icj1, 5 October 2014 17:51) By "rule against hearsay" do you mean that hearsay evidence is never admissible?
----------

I mean: as in most reputable criminal courts, there should be a rule against hearsay. icj1, you may wish to familiarize you with legal norms: In most criminal courts there is a rule against hearsay.

Laughably, the lack of rule at the ICTY means (as interpreted by the ICTY judges, not me) THERE IS NO PROHIBITION on HEARSAY EVIDENCE


(icj1, 5 October 2014 17:51) I think the world can certainly survive with "reputable jurist" Amnesty Yugoslavia mocking ICTY for nearly two decades.
-----
The world will survive despite the ICTY, which will soon join the historical dust heap of other quasi-judicial farces. In contrast to the ICTY, most of the surviving judiciaries will continue to implement a rule against hearsay.

If you imply it is the UN (I'm not familiar with the formal designation Russia and Co), then failure to address the situation is indeed laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 October 2014 19:41)

Well, feel free to complain to Russia which proposed the court, approved it and continues to approve its judges. We can't help you here :)
----------

I mean: as in most reputable criminal courts, there should be a rule against hearsay. icj1, you may wish to familiarize you with legal norms: In most criminal courts there is a rule against hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 October 2014 19:41)

You still did not answer the question of what you mean by "rule against hearsay". I could not find any criminal procedure statute in any country in the world which says there is a "rule against hearsay", which is why you need to define it. Do you mean that "hearsay evidence is never admissible" ? A simple "Yes" or "No" is sufficient. Before we move on to the next stage of what's laughable and what's not, we need to make sure what exactly you mean otherwise it's like erecting a building on shaky foundations and you know what happens to that building...!
----------

In contrast to the ICTY, most of the surviving judiciaries will continue to implement a rule against hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 October 2014 19:41)

Well, there is no contrast because you still have not clarified what you mean by "rule against hearsay"! Before you contrast things, their definitions must be clear!

The world will survive despite the ICTY, which will soon join the historical dust heap of other quasi-judicial farces.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 October 2014 19:41)

Well, that's your personal opinion, you are entitled to it but obviously it means nothing without supporting evidence - but at least it's spiritually enriching for you which is good for your health; so there is some achievement there :)

(icj1, 7 October 2014 03:18) Do you mean that "hearsay evidence is never admissible" ? A simple "Yes" or "No" is sufficient.
---

Statutory exceptions first require a rule. The ICTY, laughably, HAS NO RULE AGAINST HEARSAY. Please ask the ICTY to define a rule against hearsay and then perhaps we may be able to proceed in logical step-wise fashion to discuss statutory exceptions.

The ICTY minimally should have included these definitions in the ICTY's own rule of evidence. The fact that you are asking me to do so, perfectly demonstrates (one of many) ICTY failures and disregard for legal norms.
---

(icj1, 7 October 2014 03:18) we need to make sure what exactly you mean otherwise it's like erecting a building on shaky foundations and you know what happens to that building...!
----------

Simple, first you must show me the ICTY rule against hearsay. Then I'll be glad to answer your question about statutory exceptions.

The lack of any foundation is exemplified by the ICTY's LACK of any rule against hearsay. Reputable jurists have been commenting on this crumbling judiciary for decades. Thank you for your help in highlighting the salient lack of legal foundation, particularly with regard to hearsay evidence, at the ICTY.

(Reader, 6 October 2014 14:52) Let me help you... There are two tribunals, ICTY and Hague. ICTY deals with issues between countries...Then, there is the Hague, which deals with war crimes.

----

Dear Reader, Perhaps you may wish to clarify or seek additional reading. You are not alone as many experts are also confused about the legal foundations of the ICTY. It is interesting that you claim the ICTY "deals with issues between countries". Can you provide an example of inter-country issues? Are you referring to ICTY Judge Harhoff's analysis of the US political dictat on jurisdictions of the former Yugoslavia?

The Hague (Dutch: Den Haag) is not a court; it is a municipal jurisdiction in the Netherlands where the seat of the Dutch government and parliament, the Supreme Court, and the Council of State reside. The Hague is also home to many handsomely-paid bureaucrats some of whom work at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Perhaps you are confusing the "Hague" with some of these specific organizations?

Is the president of the tribunal Russian? Does the ICTY follow Russia's political dictat, or as claimed by Judge Harhoff, is the ICTY and the tribunal president only subject to US political dictat?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 7 October 2014 15:50)

Well, the UN says that Russia did propose the court, approved it and continues to approve all judges who are guilty of such mortal sins that you described. It does not matter what citizenship the president of the Tribunal has. The question is who made him an ICTY judge because that entity that put him on the job is the one that controls him. As for Judge Harhoff, I agree with you that those are claims, not facts. Russia approving the judges is a fact, not a claim.
----------

I am sorry that you are not familiar with a jurisdiction called the "United States of America".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 7 October 2014 15:50)

Yeah, I’m sorry too but I can’t refer to jurisdictions like the one you mention which are considered evil by the most patriotic of Serbs. But, I guess, since you are forcing us to use evil as an example, I have to refer to it.
----------

You may wish to consult the US federal rules of evidence. Rule 802 is entitled "The Rule Against Hearsay".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 7 October 2014 15:50)

So, I consulted the rules of the evil (apologies again to the most patriotic of Serbs) and did not find any ICTY Rule, judgment, opinion, decision or order which is in contrast with Rule 802. So, what’s next, dear?!

(pss, 8 October 2014 15:21) Now China has blossomed due to a capitalist economy which does not mesh very well with a communist society.

-----

Economy is one dimension of society. One may argue that China is more of a capitalist society than the US. Politically, power in both is similarly concentrated among a small elite and manifested as single party monopoly in China, and as a two party duopoly in the US.

If it wasn't for this man and Mladic the Republic of Srpska would not exist like it does today! And there would of been a repeat of what happened to Serbs in Bosnia during WWII mass genocide of Serbs from Bosnia! IZETBEGOVIC IS TO BLAME FOR ALL OF THIS AND THE REST!
(NjegosUK, 3 October 2014 13:02)

So, you are saying that Izetbegovic is to blame for an HYPOTHETICAL genocide of Serbs that could have happened, but those responsible for a genocide that ACTUALLY happened (like the one in Srebrenica according to the UN) are not to blame!!! Mate, do you grasp the nonsense that you are writing?!

Indeed, every Serb is, as far as NATO and the anglo-american aggressors are concerned, a war criminal, a villain and guilty for whatever NATO claims, for being what he is.
(fas, 3 October 2014 12:59)

Nope, you are saying that. And I don't get why you want to implicate the Serb nation with crimes allegedly committed by one or some individuals!!! Criminal responsibility is individual not collective and it's not Serbia that is in the dock.

From the article :

Robinson said that the prosecution could in no way prove that Karadzic had not intended to destroy the Muslims throughout Bosnia, which would be necessary as if to prove the liability of the genocide.

Did anyone notice the glaring double negative. Or, did Robinson actually mean that Karadzic was guilty of genocide.

(sj, 6 October 2014 12:40
The court dismissed the claims against SERBIA not RS nor people Serb ethniticity. The court also ruled that genocide did occur and therefore the tribunal must take that into consideration. They will consider that more strongly than an "sj opinion" as they probably do not read B92. Also comments on their literacy just shows the lack of it on your part.
You may not agree with their opinions nor actions, but that is probably more due to the difference in degree of education and knowledge and a misconception that Serbs are without sin.

The problem with the term genocide only relates to semi literate Albanians. On the one hand their beloved International Court dismissed all actions against Serbia over Bosnia’s claim of genocide but the Hague tribunal has a different interpretation to that meaning which is if you’re a Serb then it guilty and life in prison. Funny how the Tribunal uses hearsay and unsubstantiated evidence in court to convict Serbs, but its the revolving door for Croats, Bosniaks and albos.
The Tribunal cannot prove genocide because there was no systematic murder of people that corresponds to the definition of that word – Rawanda was genocide but Bosnia was not. Well in a normal court you cant but everything is possible at the Tribunal where even the judiciary are barely literate themselves.
(sj, 6 October 2014 12:40)

As usual you compare apples, oranges, bananas, and cucumbers and conclude that there were euros in 1994. Let me help you sj :). There are two tribunals, ICTY and Hague. ICTY deals with issues between countries. This is where Vuk "over my dead body" Jeremic took the issue of Kosovo's independence declaration and lost it. Where Bosnia took Serbia to court. Then, there is the Hague, which deals with war crimes. The article is talking about the Hague. Now, homework for you: guess which one has ruled that genocide happened in Srebrenica.

By the way, how did you spend those euros in 1994? Who took them?

(Mlstefanovic, 6 October 2014 13:53)
The thing that amazes me and I will never understand is those that weep for the treatment of Serbs in WWII, however, turn a deaf ear to the crimes that Serbs rendered on the Albanians in Kosovo.

It would seem natural that Serbia would have become a champion for human rights rather than one of Europes biggest violators.

(sj, 7 October 2014 09:52)
Why do you call others illiterate?? Take a hard look in the mirror, you have to be in the top 3 posters of un substantiated, un proven and just plain wrong nonfactual bs here.
What court ruled genocide did not take place?? The ICTY ruled that Srebrenica was an act of genocide. Serbia and Montenegro as it was called at the time were ruled not directly responsible. RS and its leaders Karadzic and Mladic included have not been ruled not responsible.
With your track record of inaccuracies, it is doubtful any Albanian or anyone else for that matter feels your derogatory comments can be taken seriously.

You have a lot to learn in life lad.
(sj, 8 October 2014 08:00)
One thing for sure, I won't be learning it from you. You are as predictable as the reaction of a dog when you hold out a pork chop. I ask you which court ruled Srebrenica was not a genocide as you claim, and since you cannot answer because it was not true, you jump on a totally different subject thinking you are somehow going to shock, intimidate or irritate me.
I will let you in on a little secret that no one knows (wink, wink) the subject that you just revealed for the first time to the world here on B92 has already been published in about 40,000 news sources throughout the world. But there is one little detail we are not talking dollar for dollar here we are talking about adjusted numbers with parity pricing.
Now do I give a rats a--, simply no, I am living the same today as I did yesterday, and will be the same tomorrow.
A good thing out of this maybe China will pay dues greater than 5% of the UN budget and maybe the US will pay less than the 22% they do today.

Now China has blossomed due to a capitalist economy which does not mesh very well with a communist society. Eventually, one or the other will have to overtake the other. Which will it be?
You are a child playing in a grown up world.
Still waiting on an answer to the question!

According to the ICTY statute, member states nominate judges from their jurisdiction. Fact: tribunal president Meron was nominated by the US, and not Russia.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 8 October 2014 14:45)

Oh, OK, sorry for my ignorance - so just the nomination by a UN member state is needed to be made an ICTY judge. EUREKA, that's great! We have the solution, then. Serbia can make some Serbs ICTY judges by just nominating them and all problems that we're discussing here will be solved!
----------

I am glad that you agree with Judge Harhhoff`s claim that the US indeed controls him. Next.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 8 October 2014 14:45)

I agreed that Judge Harhhoff made a claim. It's unfortunate that that's not a fact, but just a claim :)
----------

I`m not sure what this drivel means, other than a pitiable example in simple rationale rebuttal.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 8 October 2014 14:45)

I'm sure the most patriotic of Serbs will be glad to explain to you why the country you are taking as an example is evil :)
----------

The ICTY, laughably, HAS NO RULE AGAINST HEARSAY. Please ask the ICTY to define a rule against hearsay and then perhaps we may be able to proceed in logical step-wise fashion to discuss statutory exceptions.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 7 October 2014 16:07)

That's a logical fallacy. If there are exceptions, you can start with either a "rule against" or a "rule for" and still get to exactly the same result.

Rule 802 includes: “Hearsay is not admissible”; in contrast, the ICTY decision in the Blaskic case states: “Hearsay is admissible”.
That you fail to see the contrast is a fitting demonstration of your capabilities. Pitiful, or perhaps like the ICTY...laughable. Next, dear.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 8 October 2014 14:45)

Yep, and next is that the above is a nice a try for a novice, but unfortunately doomed to fail as a legal argument. Because Rule 802 includes other things, as well, which you (or your "reputable jurists") conveniently forgot. Rule 802 says:

"Hearsay is not admissible UNLESS any of the following provides
otherwise:
- a federal statute;
- these rules; or
- other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.
(As amended Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)"

(emphasis added by me in case you missed it)

ICTY's Blaskic decision starts with "admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition in principle" but then makes exceptions as to "relevance and probative value". So, both Rule 802 and ICTY are saying the same thing with different words (FYI, in case you are not aware, it is indeed possible to say the same thing with different words) that hearsay can sometime be admitted and some time can't be admitted - i.e. it's a case-by-case analysis.

So, now that we have the entire Rule 802, which is the specific piece of evidence that ICTY admitted in the Blaskic case or, for that matter, in any other case in contrast with Rule 802?

For the past 2 years I have said that China is the No 1 world economy
(sj, 8 October 2014 08:00)

I was telling this news to a friend of mine from Qatar and it went like this:

me: "the CE of B92 forums sj revealed to the world that China is the No 1 world economy; you should move to China";

him: "but the average resident here (Qatar) has a GDP per capita (at PPP) which is 12x higher than the average Chinese resident";

me: "well, but China's total GDP (at PPP) is 54x higher than Qatar's"

him: "but how does that help the average individual?"

me: "well, being in China poor (on average) is not a problem because think about the immense spiritual joy and prestige of living in the largest world economy - that has no price"

after I said that, he moved to China and became poor (like the average Chinese resident) but proud to be part of the largest world economy - hurrah!!!


P.S. CE = Chief Economist

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:33) So, both Rule 802 and ICTY are saying the same thing with different words (FYI, in case you are not aware, it is indeed possible to say the same thing with different words) that hearsay can sometime be admitted and some time can't be admitted - i.e. it's a case-by-case analysis.

Rule 802 and the Blaskic decision are factually different. Rule 802 REJECTS hearsay unless defined by specific statutory exceptions. In contrast, ICTY rules of evidence DO NOT have a rule against hearsay and in one early case where the principle of hearsay was questioned, the ICTY decided that “admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition in principle”.

For those that don’t understand the difference: In US federal court a defendant can object to hearsay. At the ICTY a defendant CAN NOT object to hearsay.
Apologists for the ICTY will attempt to tell you this is the same thing. Laughable.
---

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:33) hearsay can sometime be admitted and some time can't be admitted - i.e. it's a case-by-case analysis.

Can you substantiate this allegation: Has a judge, during presentation of evidence at the ICTY, sustained an objection to hearsay and rejected the admission of hearsay?

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) Oh, OK, sorry for my ignorance - so just the nomination by a UN member state is needed to be made an ICTY judge.
Apology accepted. However, it appears you need more help. Nomination is only a prerequisite. Meron was nominated by the US and elected by the UN. I’m still not sure why you are so obsessed with proving that Meron was only controlled Russia?
----------

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) I'm sure the most patriotic of Serbs will be glad to explain to you why the country you are taking as an example is evil :)
Why do you need third parties to explain your writings? You used the term evil and wrote that the example is evil, can you substantiate your own claim?
----------


(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) That's a logical fallacy. If there are exceptions, you can start with either a "rule against" or a "rule for" and still get to exactly the same result.
Perhaps with the convoluted (il)logic at the ICTY. Can you point to the specific parts of ICTY rules of evidence that allow us to evaluate the “rule for” and its statutory exceptions?

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) Oh, OK, sorry for my ignorance - so just the nomination by a UN member state is needed to be made an ICTY judge.
Apology accepted. However, it appears you need more help. Nomination is only a prerequisite. Meron was nominated by the US and elected by the UN. I’m still not sure why you are so obsessed with proving that Meron was only controlled Russia?
----------

(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) I'm sure the most patriotic of Serbs will be glad to explain to you why the country you are taking as an example is evil :)
Why do you need third parties to explain your writings? You used the term evil and wrote that the example is evil, can you substantiate your own claim?
----------


(icj1, 9 October 2014 02:02) That's a logical fallacy. If there are exceptions, you can start with either a "rule against" or a "rule for" and still get to exactly the same result.
Perhaps with the convoluted (il)logic at the ICTY. Can you point to the specific parts of ICTY rules of evidence that allow us to evaluate the “rule for” and its statutory exceptions?

Economy is one dimension of society. One may argue that China is more of a capitalist society than the US. Politically, power in both is similarly concentrated among a small elite and manifested as single party monopoly in China, and as a two party duopoly in the US.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 8 October 2014 17:38
Actually you said nothing! The capitalistic leaders in China are not the same group as the communist leaders which is why you see the billionaires in China securing exit strategies for them and families and as much wealth as possible, should it become necessary.
Actually, it would be better in my opinion if we had a strong third party but people here align themselves more to either ideology of one or the other. But how is a system like in Serbia where you have 20 parties and in the end you do not have a majority, so then the little parties jump on board say the SNS, they do not change the goals, but the leaders of the small parties will get some nonpolicy making positions in the government and you end up with a government run by basically one party that did not have the support of the majority of people as in Serbia with the SNS? Now you can add all the other letters behind it but it is still a SNS government ruling with a SNS platform.

But still my question was a capitalist economy is diametrically in opposition to the communist ideals. Eventually they one will have to overpower the other for survival. Which will it be?

(pss, 9 October 2014 12:30) But still my question was a capitalist economy is diametrically in opposition to the communist ideals. Eventually they one will have to overpower the other for survival. Which will it be?

----

I don't think that China is still implementing "communist" economic policy. Political "ideals" are different from economic "ideals". Neither political monopolies nor political duoploies (both of which are anti-competitive) have prevented the emergence and/or growth of capitalist economies.

(pss, 9 October 2014 12:30) Actually, it would be better in my opinion if we had a strong third party but people here align themselves more to either ideology of one or the other.

---

I agree, it would be better. Does the current US political system deliberately protect the duopoly? Does a "third" political party have the same rights as the duopolists? Can you enter a voting booth in the US and vote for all third party candidates with a single switch or is this political "freedom" only a privilege for the duopolists?

Apology accepted. However, it appears you need more help. Nomination is only a prerequisite. Meron was nominated by the US and elected by the UN. I’m still not sure why you are so obsessed with proving that Meron was only controlled Russia?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 12:04)

Oh, OK so I was correct then – Meron is approved by Russia (not just once, but several times) and thus controlled by Russia. It can’t be elected by the UN without being approved by Russia. And that’s important because, we’re told, that Russia is a friend of Serbs.
----------

Why do you need third parties to explain your writings? You used the term evil and wrote that the example is evil, can you substantiate your own claim?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 12:04)

Because I try to use reputable sources, like the most patriotic of Serbs or the CE of B92 forums sj. Using reputable sources is important for making an argument.

P.S. CE = Chief Economist

Perhaps with the convoluted (il)logic at the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 12:04)

There is nothing convoluted unless you hate thinking! Just some logical reasoning instead of copy-paste from “reputable jurists”. So, let’s see whether the order of first defining a rule against hearsay and only then proceed to discuss statutory exceptions matters or not. Let’s take an example that does first define a rule against hearsay and another one that doesn't and check if there is a difference. For example, let’s say evidence A and B are both hearsay evidence and we have the following rules:

Rule 1: Hearsay evidence is not admissible, except for B;
Rule 2: Hearsay evidence cannot be excluded in principle, except for A;

If you are presented with evidence B and you admit it, is that OK under Rule 1? Would you reach a different conclusion under Rule 2?
----------

Rule 802 and the Blaskic decision are factually different. Rule 802 REJECTS hearsay unless defined by specific statutory exceptions. In contrast, ICTY rules of evidence DO NOT have a rule against hearsay and in one early case where the principle of hearsay was questioned, the ICTY decided that “admissibility of hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition in principle”.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 11:32)

If Rule 802 and the Blaskic decision are factually different, than not sure what’s the point of comparing the law applicable to different facts!!!

For those that don’t understand the difference: In US federal court a defendant can object to hearsay. At the ICTY a defendant CAN NOT object to hearsay.
Apologists for the ICTY will attempt to tell you this is the same thing. Laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 11:32)

Oh, I’m so disappointed I can’t get a laugh (it’s good for the health) because there is no rule at the ICTY that says “a defendant CAN NOT object to hearsay”. The rule at the ICTY is that “A Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value” and “A Chamber may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the need to ensure a fair trial”. If you say I want “evidence to be excluded because it is hearsay”, whether you are in the US or at the ICTY, the judge will say “let me see the evidence first and then I’ll decide whether to exclude it after hearing the arguments”. No judge, whether in the US or ICTY, will exclude hearsay evidence in principle, i.e. just because it is hearsay without first seeing/hearing it and listening to the arguments of the parties. Sorry, dear, if that comes as a shock to you after copy-pasting the edicts of “reputable jurists” :)

Can you substantiate this allegation: Has a judge, during presentation of evidence at the ICTY, sustained an objection to hearsay and rejected the admission of hearsay?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 11:32)

I did not make the allegation above – note I used the word “can” not “has”. I said that according to the US and ICTY’s rules “hearsay can sometime be admitted and sometime can't be admitted - i.e. it's a case-by-case analysis”. Do you dispute that? If you do, then you are either implying that “hearsay can never be admitted” or that “hearsay can always be admitted”. Is that simple – just let me know whether it’s the former or the latter!

Mate, reading your posts, it appears you are trying to prove that US’s Rule 802 and ICTY’s rules don’t contain the same words. There is no need for you to waste your time with that – I agree with you that they don’t contain the same words :)

(icj1, 10 October 2014 04:14) Can you substantiate this allegation: Has a judge, during presentation of evidence at the ICTY, sustained an objection to hearsay and rejected the admission of hearsay?
I did not make the allegation above – note I used the word “can” not “has”.

Through your distinction between the word "can" and "has", a Judge "can" reject hearsay, but at the ICTY a Judge has not rejected hearsay.

Yes, the prolific use and absurd quantities of hearsay evidence admitted at the ICTY have shocked reputable jurists. Such farce is only possible at the ICTY and not in US federal court because Rule 802 is indeed different. Judges in the US routinely sustain objections to hearsay without hearing arguments; in contrast the ICTY Judges and routinely admit hearsay without sustaining or permitting objections.

Thank you for clarifying what "can" be done by reputable jurists and what "has" be done by ICTY judges.

(icj1, 10 October 2014 03:51) Oh, OK so I was correct then – Meron is approved by Russia (not just once, but several times) and thus controlled by Russia.
----------

Harhoff's wording regarding the control of Meron and the ICTY is: "the military establishment in leading states (such as USA...".

The US was specifically named, though his exemplification of US with the word "such" implies the list was not complete. That you also implicate Russia, which is a leading state with a military establishment, only substantiates Harhoff's claim. Farcical court controlled by leading states with military establishments.
Thank you.

---

I agree, it would be better. Does the current US political system deliberately protect the duopoly? Does a "third" political party have the same rights as the duopolists? Can you enter a voting booth in the US and vote for all third party candidates with a single switch or is this political "freedom" only a privilege for the duopolists?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 October 2014 16:25)
Don't know what voting booths you are referring to but I have never seen a lever to vote strickly by party you have individual levers for each person.
But in a system as you say there would actually have to be a third party that would have to have representatives in each category, that is not true at this time.

(pss, 10 October 2014 20:39)Don't know what voting booths you are referring to but I have never seen a lever to vote strickly by party you have individual levers for each person.

It's called a "master lever" that facilitates straight-ticket voting. Some states have removed them, but "key" states such as Pennsylvania, Texas, New Jersey among others still use them.
I agree that there are other impediments to the establishment of a strong third party.