[ Home ] [ Library ] [ Index ] [ Maps ] [ Links ] [ Search ] [ Email ]

So, that was it: The Hague Tribunal in its first verdict - the one reached in the trial of Bosnian Serb, Dusko Tadic - clearly stated: The war in Bosnia was a civil war! This is not what American Administration paid for. The Hague Tribunal was paid for (good part of it with American money!) with clear intention to blame the victim - the Bosnian Serbs. The Serbs, even those born in Bosnia, were to be painted by the "tribunal" as aggressors in an international conflict. The judges dared say opposite.

Reluctantly and wrapped in heavy anti-Serb propaganda, the American media had to report the unpleasant news. Here is how they did it.

The Chicago Tribune, on May 8, 1997 talks about Tadic's judgment under title: "War crimes panel convicts Bosnian". The article clearly expresses the shock:


"To the dismay of the prosecution, two of the three judges ruled Wednesday that all the charges involving "grave breaches" of the fourth Geneva Convention did not apply in the case.

Two judges ruled that the fighting in Bosnia after May 1992 has not been proved to be an international conflict, and its victims therefore could not be considered protected people who were in the hands of a foregn occupier."

End quote.

So much for Muslim claim that Serbia and the Serbs have invaded Bosnia.

The Boston Globe, on May 8, 1997, rather talks about "guilty" part of the verdict and insists in comparing this tribunal with the one in the Nuremberg in 1945. The article with the pretentious title "Bosnian Serb convicted of war crimes: International court reaches its first verdict" (by Elizabeth Neuffer) still mentions:


..."the judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ruled that insufficient evidence was presented to convict Tadic on counts of murder or sexual mutilation. In a decision with implications for future trials, two of the judges ruled that Tadic had not breached the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

...the Tadic case relied on witnesses, who proved far less reliable. Rape charges against Tadic had to be dropped after witnesses refused to testify. Some witnesses changed their testimony on the stand.

A lead prosecution witness, known as "Witness L" recanted and accused the Bosnian government of pressuring him into giving testimony."

End quote.

Los Angeles Times, Thursday, May 8, 1997, has pretentious title: "Bosnian Serb Is Convicted of War Crimes" (by Tracy Wilkinson). There is no mention of the importance of the verdict in presenting the conflict as being a civil war (vs. aggression). Instead it talks of the Serbian victim of the "trial". They say:


"Tadic was cleared of 20 serious counts, including 13 murders, allegedly committed when he served as a part-time guard and police officer around the city of Prijedor. Three rape counts were dropped early in the trial because the alleged victim refused to testify, and charges involving up to 30 other murders were dropped when the key witness was found to be lying.

Tadic has maintained his innocence, saying he is a victim of mistaken identity."

End quote.

Well the witness was not "found" to be lying. The witness (a Serb) have found courage to admit that the Muslim government of Bosnia, under threat of killing his relatives - coached him how to lie on the witness stand!

The Washington Post starts with a worst presentation possible - right in the title - "U.N. Tribunal Finds Bosnian Serb Guilty" - and then the author (Charles Trueheart) tries hard to find excuses why it is not quite so.

While the other articles brag about the "speedy and just" prosecution of the court and mention that the prosecution lasted ONE YEAR ONLY, here in the Washington Post article an important truth slips:


"Tadic, who was arrested in Germany in February 1994 while visiting family members, has already spent more than three years in custody."
End quote.

Such justice Western ubermenschen have for their Easter untermenschen neighbors. The pretrial for untermenchen can last THREE WHOLE YEARS!

Elsewhere, in the Western world.... In Great Britain, quite unusual for well established anti-Serb propaganda outpost, the BBC Channel 2 had courage to broadcast interesting documentary about Tadic trial. The documentary highlighted the fact that *all* the evidence against Mr. Tadic was circumstantial and that he was found guilty for only 11 out of the 31 charges leveled against him. All of the 11 charges were lesser ones. Also, particular attention was given to two matters:

(1) Tadic was found guilty, as one of the prosecuting lawyers argued, simply because of his assumed presence at Omarska. There was not otherwise one scrap of evidence to show that he actually did *any* of the alleged crimes. Atop of that he was acquitted of all of the horrible charges.

(2) The whole business of anonymity of witnesses was thoroughly discussed in the documentary, particularly with respect to "witness L", Mr. Dragan Opacic. The defence actually broke the court's ruling about not contacting the family of "witness L" and his role on behalf of the Muslim authorities was discovered almost by accident. Since then the court has made witness anonymity even tougher - which, of course, brings the whole process even further into disrepute. One has only to remember the disgraceful behavior of NATO in the case of Gen. Djukic and Col. Krsmanovic.

The cost of this proceeding was mentioned in the documentary.

It was, on the whole, quite an indictment of the way the court operates.

Not everyone budged though. For many years leading in anti-Serb hysteria the New York Times continued the propaganda even at this point of the setback...

NEXT  Next:

    [ The New York Times propagandists purposely misread the judgment ]

PREVIOUS  Back to:

    [ Tadic judgment: It was a civil war! ]
    [ The Hague "Tribunal" ]

Where am I? PATH: 

Book of facts 

The truth belongs to us all.

Feel free to download, copy and redistribute.

Last revised: June 2, 1997