|
[ Home ] [ Library ] [ Index ] [ Maps ] [ Links ] [ Search ] [ Email ] |
Not an international conflict!
The echoes of Tadic judgment
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:
Quote:
"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:
Quote:
..."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." 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:
End quote.
Quote:
"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:
Quote:
"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: [ The New York Times propagandists purposely misread the judgment ]
Back to: [ Tadic judgment: It was a civil war! ]
[ The Hague "Tribunal" ]
Where am I? PATH:
|
