THE JUDGE AS PROSECUTOR:
TWO DAYS AT THE "TRIAL" OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
By Ian Johnson Leigh, Lancashire * UK
[Posted 19 June 2002]
NOTE: For audio of 'trial' go to http://hague.bard.edu/video.html For
transcripts, go to http://www.un.org/icty/latest/index.htm
======================================
Introduction: Ian Johnson recounts an incident that occurred while he was
attending the Milosevic 'trial' at The Hague on June 7th:
"During the morning break I met a young Dutch lad in the lobby. He was
studying medicine in Vienna but was staying for the summer with his
grandfather in Holland. He was curious about the Milosevic case. Of course
he couldn't find it on the television. So he'd come over to watch with his
own eyes. He saw me taking notes and approached me. He wanted to see if I
was thinking what he was thinking. His English was excellent. He said, "I
don't know that much about the issues, but anyone can see this isn't a
proper trial, is it? The Judge is totally against him. In fact he's openly
contemptuous of Mr. Milosevic, isn't he? What's going on here?"
I work as a paralegal in the UK. So for me, the perversion of justice I had
just witnessed - and with a British judge presiding! - was infuriating. But
here was this young Dutch lad, not in the legal profession or involved in
defending Mr. Milosevic at all, but a thinking person, and he was horrified
as well. He wanted to know why his country was supporting such a travesty.
This is why they have stopped showing the proceedings on television. Because
the people, and especially the young people, wouldn't stand for it, would
they?"
Here is Ian Johnson's account of:
TWO DAYS AT THE "TRIAL" OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
To spend one day at The Hague Tribunal is enough to confirm the worst of
suspicions. What is actually taking place in the heart of 'democratic'
Europe is a show-trial so blatant, so lacking in legality, that it brings
shame to those who are participating in it and to those who refuse to
challenge it.
The history of the Tribunal's formation and funding is well documented.
Originally an idea that emanated from the United States Department of the
Army, it was brought into being via the UN Security Council in its
Resolutions 808 and 827 of 1993. Not only was this act legally invalid,
being that the Security Council had no authority in judicial matters to
establish such a Tribunal, but its creation also involved a reinterpretation
of the UN Charter.
Canadian lawyer Christopher Black observed the following:
"...the UN is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of its
members, a fundamental principle of international law and the first
guarantee of the right to self-determination of the world's peoples. If a
people do not have the right of sovereignty, the right to self-determination
is a sham. This principle is completely denied by the creation of the
Tribunal. The UN Charter states that nothing contained in the Charter shall
authorise the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state.
This fundamental principle, put in the Charter so that the UN could not be
used by some members to bully others has also been fatally undermined by the
creation of the Tribunal. The members of the Security Council, more
precisely, the permanent members, now hold the opposite position, and I
submit, do so for reasons connected more with imperialism not
humanitarianism." (1)
The Tribunal's funding exposes its political character. Much of it comes
from the US government through cash and equipment, with other notable
contributors being the Rockefeller family, Time-Warner, who own CNN and have
exclusive rights to broadcast the trial, and American billionaire financier
George Soros. The Soros connection is significant. The Coalition for
International Justice (CIJ), founded and funded by George Soros, supplies
many of the Tribunal's legal staff. The George Soros foundation, the Open
Society Institute, is one of the parties that obtain evidence for the
Tribunal, and most tellingly, the Open Society Institute funds the main KLA
newspaper in Pristina, a fact that has not been mentioned once by the
western media.
POLITICAL BIAS IN ACTION
Even if one had no knowledge of the Tribunal's history, a brief visit to
Courtroom One of the Hague Tribunal to witness the trial of Slobodan
Milosevic would immediately give cause for concern.
Unlike the practice in criminal courts The Hague court itself is involved in
the laying of charges and the approval of one of the trial judges must be
obtained before a charge can be laid.
This extraordinary relationship between the prosecution and judges
undermines the right of the accused to a presumption of innocence.
Furthermore this close relationship can be witnessed in the day to day
proceedings at The Hague.
I visited the Tribunal during the first week of June 2002 and can bear
witness to the various ways this hand in glove operation of prosecutor and
judge appears in practice.
I heard the testimony of several prosecution witnesses during the sessions I
attended.
Each witness gave their, sometimes lengthy, statements that were then
elaborated on by the prosecution and on occasions involved photographs and
maps. At no time during this process did the judge, Richard May, stipulate a
time limit on the prosecution. Yet when it was the turn of Mr Milosevic to
cross-examine the witness, Judge May would instruct that a time limit be put
on proceedings. At one point, in response to protests from Mr Milosevic,
Judge May arrogantly proclaimed, "We are the judges Mr Milosevic and we have
judged that you will have forty-five minutes to cross-examine this witness."
(7th June 2002).
Basically a cross-examination should take as long as it takes, be it ten
minutes or ten hours, especially as the accused is facing the gravest
charges any human being can face. But in the peculiar rules and procedures
of this particular court, the trial judges will ensure that this is not the
case.
Additionally, the Tribunal has been given the absolute authority to devise
its own rules and procedures, an unheard of situation in any other
circumstance.
When we come to the way the judges attempt to 'protect' the prosecution
witnesses from any piercing cross-examination of their statements the full
political bias of the court is revealed. I understand from other reports
that this is a daily occurrence, however I will limit myself here to what I
personally witnessed.
On the 6th June prosecution witness Mr Buyo, a KLA commander in the Racak
zone during 1999, in his testimony relating to events surrounding the
alleged Racak 'massacre', initially claimed that Serbian security forces had
opened fire first.
However, later in his testimony when explaining the KLA's actions, he
testified that his own forces had merely fired warning shots into the air so
as to alert their colleagues of the approaching Serb forces.
Mr Milosevic seized on this discrepancy and pointedly asked the witness,
"Why, if it was true that the Serbian security forces had fired first, was
it necessary to fire warning shots into the air?" A quite reasonable
assumption one would have thought. If you are under attack there is no need
for any colleague of yours to fire shots in the air warning you of an
approaching enemy.
Mr Milosevic attempted to drive home the significance of this discrepancy at
which point, with the witness clearly in trouble, Judge May intervened and
instructed, "Move on Mr Milosevic, you have laboured this point enough. Go
on to another question." Mr Buyo was off the hook.
A further witness, who admitted his brother was a member of the KLA, claimed
he was an eyewitness to a 'massacre' of civilians in his village near Bela
Crkva
He testified that Serb forces had entered his peaceful village, separated
the women and children from the men and proceeded to execute seventy men,
women and children.
In his cross-examination (time limit imposed) Mr Milosevic asked why, if
they killed seventy men, women and children so indiscriminately, would they
bother separating them in the first place? After a lengthy silence from the
witness Judge May interjected, "I don't think you can expect the witness to
know that."
The witness's credibility was further undermined when he denied any
knowledge of the KLA kidnapping of both Serb and Albanian residents in his
village just a few weeks earlier, claiming he must have been away at the
time and upon his return no villagers mentioned it to him. Up to that date
the kidnapping was the biggest event to occur in his village for years, yet,
as a life long resident there, he had never even heard about it.
Proceedings were taking a predictable course. It didn't take much insight to
grasp the following: A) The witnesses told a well-rehearsed story. B) If the
witnesses got into difficulties during the cross-examination the Judge would
intervene.
INADEQUATE WHEN CHALLENGED
This observation was further confirmed with the appearance of one Mr Ian
Robert Hendrie, a member of the London Metropolitan Police who had been
seconded to the OSCE and was part of the verification mission in Racak
headed by William Walker.
Mr Hendrie told of his observations while he was touring the Racak
'massacre' site, using several photographs that he had taken personally.
Under cross-examination, when asked if he toured the site alone or if
somebody had showed him around, he replied that the latter was the case.
"Who showed you around the site?" enquired Mr Milosevic. "I don't know," was
the astonishing response.
Here was a member of the verification team who could not verify who it was
that told him about the 'massacre' and showed him the supposed evidence. But
apparently Mr. Hendrie's testimony, dependent as it was on a guide and
translator whom he could not identify, was neverthless acceptable, because
Judge May impatiently instructed Mr. Milosevic to move on to another question.
However the other questions got Mr Hendrie into deeper trouble. He could not
explain why his photographs showed only patches of blood and not pools as
would be expected. Nor could he explain why no person's blood had spilled
onto another person's body, which it was logical to assume would have been
the case if all these bodies, densely packed together, had been killed
simultaneously at this one specific place.
Enter Judge May. "The witness is not a forensic expert and cannot be
expected to know these things." In other words, Mr. Hendrie's expertise had
a dual nature. It was sufficient when he was testifying against Mr.
Milosevic, but woefully inadequate when he was challenged.
Comments such as this, which pepper the trial every day, might be expected
from the prosecution, but from a supposedly neutral trial Judge?
When asked by the defendant if he had ever heard of the 'paraffin test', (a
test which can determine if a person had recently handled a firearm), Mr
Hendrie didn't answer but left it to Judge May to announce that, "This test
has been discredited" to which Mr Milosevic added with a touch of sarcasm
"But only in the USA, not in Yugoslavia."
Mr Yemeni was the last prosecution witness I observed during my June visit.
In his statement he claimed to have witnessed the killing of civilians in
his village in Kosovo. He claimed he was hiding in his attic from where he
supposedly witnessed the 'killings' and also overheard Yugoslav commanders
communicating on mobile phones and comparing the number of dead with the
number of dead at Racak. Mr Yemeni, at the age of twenty-four, was Mayor of
his village.
Below I paraphrase excerpts of the cross-examination:
Mr Milosevic. "Are you a member of the KLA?"
Mr Yemeni. "No."
Mr M. "Are you a member of any political party?"
Mr Y. "Yes"
Me M. "What is your party called?"
Mr Y. "The Democratic Party"
Mr M. "Who is the leader of your party?"
Mr Y. "Mr. Thaci." [Mr Thaci was a leader of the KLA in 1999]. ***
Mr M. "When did you join this party?"
Mr Y. "I don't know."
Mr M. "You don't know when you joined? All right. Approximately when did you
join?"
Mr Y. " I don't know"
Judge May. "Mr Milosevic, move on, it is not relevant when he joined the
party."
Mr M. "It is very relevant. However. How is it that you were Mayor of your
village at such a young age? This is very unusual."
Mr Y. " I was Mayor because I represent modern civilisation, unlike the
backward Serbs. Modern civilisation that we are now building in Kosovo needs
leaders like myself to take them out of the backwardness that Serbs kept
them in. We are building a civilisation that is modern and we need
intelligent people like me."
Judge May allowed this racist diatribe to go on without comment.
Mr M. "I didn't know I was talking to an intellectual. However, let me ask
you about the conversations that you say you overheard between commanders.
Where were you when you overheard these conversations?"
Mr Y "Hiding in the attic of my house."
Mr M. "And what was the position of the soldiers who were using their phones?"
Mr Y. "On the balcony of a house facing my attic window."
Mr M. "Which is how far away?"
Mr Y. "Fifteen metres."
Mr Milosevic holds up a photograph for the witness that shows the houses in
question.
Mr M. "As you can see there is no balcony facing your attic. And the nearest
house is more like fifty metres away. Is that right or not?"
Mr Y. "No."
Judge May. "Move on Mr. Milosevic. The witness has told you his position."
Mr M. "Very well. As there were no KLA in your village, as you say, and
therefore the villagers saw no reason to flee, as you say in your statement,
why then did you feel it necessary to hide in your attic?"
A lengthy silence followed. Then the witness resumed his anti-Serb rhetoric
of fighting for a modern civilisation against the darkness of the Serbs. At
no point did Judge May direct the witness to answer the question or attempt
to stop the racist language being used by Mr Yemeni.
Mr M. "All right. When the Security Forces were in your village what was the
atmosphere like?"
Mr Y. "It was frightening. The Serbs were firing their guns into the air all
the time and shouting and screaming at the civilians. They were like wild
men."
Mr M. "So above this frightening noise, above the firing of guns, above the
shouts and the screams you were able, even from, as you insist, fifteen
metres away, you were able to hear telephone conversations?"
Mr Y. "We represent a modern civilisation, that's what intellectuals like
myself are fighting for."
Mr. Milosevic repeated the question.
Judge May. "Have you many more questions for this witness Mr Milosevic?"
Mr M. "I have about forty more questions."
Judge May. "Well I am giving you ten more minutes with this witness."
Mr M. "That just shows the bias of this court as I have said previously."
Turning to the prosecution witness Mr Milosevic continued.
Mr M. "From what position did you observe the killing of the civilians?"
Mr Y. "From my attic window."
Mr M. "All the killings took place outside your attic window?"
Mr Y. "I can observe all the town from my attic. I can move around."
Mr M. "So with all this killing going on you felt secure enough, just
fifteen metres away from the Security forces, to be able to move around your
attic?"
Mr Y. "With all the noise no one could hear me so I was secure."
Mr M. "So the noise was so great that the Security forces could not hear you
moving around, but the noise wasn't loud enough to prevent you from
listening to a telephone conversation at least fifteen metres away from your
position. Is that right or not?"
Judge May. "Your time is up Mr Milosevic. Mr Yemeni, I would like to thank
you for coming to give evidence to the International Tribunal and you are
now free to go."
THE SCALES OF JUSTICE
As I perused Courtroom One with its judges, lawyers, secretaries and legal
clerks, I realised that these people, working for this particular Tribunal,
had sold their dignity and the dignity of their profession to the New World
Order.
The essence of this Tribunal is summed up perfectly by lawyer Christopher
Black:
"No citizen of any country in the world would consider themselves fairly
tried before a court that was paid for, staffed and assisted by private
citizens or corporations which had a direct stake in the outcome of the
trial and who were, themselves, in practical terms, immune from that court.
It is a well established principle of law that a party in a legal action,
whether civil or criminal, is entitled to ask for the removal of any judge
sitting on the case when there exists a reasonable apprehension of bias.
In this instance, a compelling argument can be made that the bias is not
only apprehended, it is real, that it is not of one judge but of the entire
tribunal, that this is not a judicial body worthy of international respect
but a kangaroo court, a bogus court, with a political purpose serving very
powerful and identifiable masters. To be consistent with my thesis I will go
further and say that as a political instrument designed to violate, to
destroy the integrity and sovereignty of a country, its creation is a crime
against peace under the Nuremberg Principles. Instead of resolving conflict
as it claims, it is used to justify conflict, instead of creating peace, it
is used to justify war and therefore is an instrument of war."
During the trial session of Friday 7th June Mr. Milosevic complained to the
court that he had not as yet received a copy of the statement made by
William Walker, head of the OSCE and a vital prosecution witness. Mr Walker
was due in court the following Monday. Judge May said he would look into this.
The prosecution has been preparing their case for years, their witnesses are
well rehearsed, hearsay evidence is accepted, as is secret testimony, and
cross-examination time is restricted. Yet, as if that wasn't enough, witness
statements are withheld from the accused until a few hours beforehand,
giving little time for the defence to prepare the cross-examination.
Add to this the physical and psychological conditions that Mr Milosevic and
other Yugoslav prisoners are subject to. They are treated as if they have
already been convicted, being kept in cells and under constant surveillance,
having their mail censored, family visits restricted, any communication with
their families to be at their own expense, and restrictions on what they can
see or hear on radio or television.
And, especially in the case of Mr Milosevic, a refusal to allow him to meet
with the legal advisors of his choice. Several prisoners have already died
while in custody and to the shame of organisations such as Amnesty
International, no investigation into these deaths has been forthcoming.
Despite all this Mr Milosevic is bravely using the Tribunal as his
battleground to defend his people and his country and expose the real
culprits for the wars and break-up of the Balkans, Nato and the
International Monetary Fund. He stated his position very clearly in his 11th
December 2001 pre-trial appearance: "I can tell you that I am proud that I
commanded the armed forces of Yugoslavia..I am here as a punishment for
standing up against the danger of the biggest tyranny that has threatened
mankind."
The Milosevic trial is expected to last two years, yet no matter how long a
trial takes, no matter how many well-rehearsed prosecution witnesses are
wheeled in, if the outcome is predetermined, then it is a show trial.
The resistance shown by the former President of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, against overwhelming odds, should serve as encouragement to all
those who oppose the wars, poverty and suffering inherent in the creation of
a New World Order.
Ian Johnson June 2002
Mr. Johnson can be reached by email at
***
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm Receive articles
posted on Emperor's Clothes.
Click here to email the link to this article to a friend.
Further Reading:
1) In 'The Other Side of the Story', two retired Yugoslav Army generals
refute the charges against Slobodan Milosevic and other Yugoslav leaders
point-by-point. Their sources include Yugoslav Army documents never before
available. The original source material and reasoning refutes the 'tribunal'
indictments and at the same time the narrative is informative, interesting
and hard to put down. You can download the entire book at
http://www.icdsm.org/more/book.htm Or load one chapter at a time, starting
with Chapter One at http://emperors-clothes.com/book/book1.htm
2) "An Impartial Tribunal? Really?" by Christopher Black. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/Impartial.htm
3) 'Unjust from the Start, Part IV: Learning from the Inquisition,' by
Yugoslav law professor Kosta Cavoski is part of his series on The Hague
'tribunal.' It can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-4.htm
Prof. Cavoski's series is a good introduction to The Hague 'tribunal.' You
could begin with Part I, "Unjust from the Start: The War Crimes Tribunal vs.
General Djordje Djukic," at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-1.htm
4) Attorney John Philpot wrote in asking if there was documentation of the
charge that Hague Prosecutor Arbour conferred with Western regimes before
indicting Pres. Milosevic. Read his letter, and the documentation at
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/philpot.htm
5) In 'For Whom the Bell Tolls,' editor Jared Israel warns that the
injustice at The Hague is a communicable disease...Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/tolls.htm
|