(srpskohrvatski / english.

All'interno del verdetto di colpevolezza, emesso in marzo dal "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia contro Radovan Karadzić, sono contenute di fatto le formule assolutorie che scagionano Slobodan Milošević dalle accuse per le quali fu posto sotto processo e giustiziato extra lege dallo stesso "Tribunale". Tra l'altro, la sentenza riporta che tanto Milosević quanto Karadzić erano inizialmente a favore della integrità della Jugoslavia; Milosević si oppose alla eventuale discriminazione, all'interno della Repubblica Serba di Bosnia, dei Musulmani che fossero "per la Jugoslavia", e dichiarò che "tutti i membri delle altre nazioni e nazionalità devono essere protetti" e che "la discriminazione non è nell'interesse dei Serbi". )

ICTY Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic for War Crimes

1) Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic for Bosnia War Crimes Ten Years Too Late (by Andy Wilcoxson)
3) Madeleine Albright's Criminal Enterprise (by William Dorich)

=== 1 ===

Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic for Bosnia War Crimes Ten Years Too Late

The UN war crimes tribunal has determined that the late Serbian president was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia during the 1992-95 war. The judges determined that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a "joint criminal enterprise" to victimize Bosnian Muslims and Croats.

Written By: Andy Wilcoxson
18 July 2016 - www.slobodan-milosevic.org 

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.

In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a joint criminal enterprise to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.

The March 24th Karadzic judgment states that "the Chamber is not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan" to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory.[1]

The Karadzic trial chamber found that "the relationship between Milosevic and the Accused had deteriorated beginning in 1992; by 1994, they no longer agreed on a course of action to be taken. Furthermore, beginning as early as March 1992, there was apparent discord between the Accused and Milosevic in meetings with international representatives, during which Milosevic and other Serbian leaders openly criticised Bosnian Serb leaders of committing 'crimes against humanity' and 'ethnic cleansing' and the war for their own purposes."[2]

The judges noted that Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic both favored the preservation of Yugoslavia and that Milosevic was initially supportive, but that their views diverged over time. The judgment states that "from 1990 and into mid-1991, the political objective of the Accused and the Bosnian Serb leadership was to preserve Yugoslavia and to prevent the separation or independence of BiH, which would result in a separation of Bosnian Serbs from Serbia; the Chamber notes that Slobodan Milosevic endorsed this objective and spoke against the independence of BiH."[3]

The Chamber found that "the declaration of sovereignty by the SRBiH Assembly in the absence of the Bosnian Serb delegates on 15 October 1991, escalated the situation,"[4] but that Milosevic was not on board with the establishment of Republika Srpska in response. The judgment says that "Slobodan Milosevic was attempting to take a more cautious approach"[5] 

The judgment states that in intercepted communications with Radovan Karadzic, "Milosevic questioned whether it was wise to use 'an illegitimate act in response to another illegitimate act' and questioned the legality of forming a Bosnian Serb Assembly."[6] The judges also found that "Slobodan Milosevic expressed his reservations about how a Bosnian Serb Assembly could exclude the Muslims who were 'for Yugoslavia'."[7]

The judgment notes that in meetings with Serb and Bosnian Serb officials "Slobodan Milosevic stated that '[a]ll members of other nations and ethnicities must be protected' and that '[t]he national interest of the Serbs is not discrimination'."[8] Also that "Milosevic further declared that crime needed to be fought decisively."[9]

The trial chamber notes that "In private meetings, Milosevic was extremely angry at the Bosnian Serb leadership for rejecting the Vance-Owen Plan and he cursed the Accused."[10] They also found that "Milosevic tried to reason with the Bosnian Serbs saying that he understood their concerns, but that it was most important to end the war."[11]

The judgment states that "Milosevic also questioned whether the world would accept that the Bosnian Serbs who represented only one third of the population of BiH would get more than 50% of the territory and he encouraged a political agreement."[12]

At a meeting of the Supreme Defense Council the judgment says that "Milosevic told the Bosnian Serb leadership that they were not entitled to have more than half the territory in BiH, stating that: there is no way that more than that could belong to us! Because, we represent one third of the population. [...] We are not entitled to in excess of half of the territory ñ you must not snatch away something that belongs to someone else! [...] How can you imagine two thirds of the population being crammed into 30% of the territory, while 50% is too little for you?! Is it humane, is it fair?!"[13]

In other meetings with Serb and Bosnian Serb officials, the judgment notes that Milosevic "declared that the war must end and that the Bosnian Serbsí biggest mistake was to want a complete defeat of the Bosnian Muslims."[14] Because of the rift between Milosevic and the Bosnian-Serbs, the judges note that "the FRY reduced its support for the RS and encouraged the Bosnian Serbs to accept peace proposals."[15]

The Tribunalís determination that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a joint criminal enterprise, and that on the contrary he "condemned ethnic cleansing"[16] is of tremendous significance because he got blamed for all of the bloodshed in Bosnia, and harsh economic sanctions were imposed on Serbia as a result. Wrongfully accusing Milosevic ranks right up there with invading Iraq only to find that there werenít any weapons of mass destruction after all. 

Slobodan Milosevic was vilified by the entire western press corps and virtually every politician in every NATO country. They called him "the Butcher of the Balkans." They compared him to Hitler and accused him of genocide. They demonized him and made him out to be a bloodthirsty monster, and they used that false image to justify not only economic sanctions against Serbia, but also the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia and the Kosovo war. 

Slobodan Milosevic had to spend the last five years of his life in prison defending himself and Serbia from bogus war crimes allegations over a war that they now admit he was trying to stop. The most serious charges that Milosevic faced, including the charge of genocide, were all in relation to Bosnia. Now, ten years after his death, they admit that he wasnít guilty after all ñ oops.

The ICTY did nothing to publicize the fact that they had cleared Milosevic of involvement in the joint criminal enterprise. They quietly buried that finding 1,303 pages into the 2,590 page Karadzic verdict knowing full well that most people would probably never bother to read it. †

The presiding judge in the Radovan Karadzic trial, O-Gon Kwon of South Korea, was also one of the judges in the Slobodan Milosevic trial. Milosevicís exoneration by the Karadzic trial chamber may be an indication of how the Milosevic chamber would have eventually ruled, at least on the Bosnia charges, if Milosevic had lived to see the conclusion of his own trial.

Itís worth recalling that Slobodan Milosevic died under a very suspicious set of circumstances. He died of a heart attack just two weeks after the Tribunal denied his request to undergo heart surgery in Russia.[17] He was found dead in his cell less than 72 hours after his attorney delivered a letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which he said that he feared he was being poisoned.[18] 

The Tribunalís official report on the inquiry into his death confirmed that, "Rifampicin had been found in a blood sample taken from Mr. Milosevic on 12 January 2006." And that "Mr. Milosevic was not told of the results until 3 March 2006 because of the difficult legal position in which Dr. Falke (the Tribunalís chief medical officer) found himself by virtue of the Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality."[19]

The presence of Rifamicin (a non-prescribed drug) in Milosevicís blood would have counteracted the high blood pressure medication he was taking and increased his risk of the heart attack that ultimately did kill him. The Tribunalís admission that they knew about the Rifampicin for months, but didnít tell Milosevic the results of his own blood test until just days before his death because of "Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality" is an incredibly lame and disingenuous excuse. There is no provision of Dutch law that prohibits a doctor from telling the patient the results of his own blood test -- that would be idiotic. On the contrary, concealing such information from the patient could be seen as malpractice. 

This all gives rise to well-founded suspicion that powerful geopolitical interests would rather Milosevic die before the end of his trial than see him acquitted and have their vicious lies exposed. U.S. State Department cables leaked to Wikileaks confirm that The Tribunal did discuss Milosevicís medical condition and his medical records with U.S. Embassy personnel in The Hague without his consent.[20] They clearly didnít care about medical confidentiality laws when they were blabbing about his medical records to the American embassy. 

Itís an unsatisfying outcome that Milosevic has been quietly vindicated for the most serious crimes that he was accused of some ten years after his death. At a minimum financial compensation should now be paid to his widow and his children, and reparations should be paid to Serbia by the western governments who sought to punish Serbia in order to hold Milosevic "accountable" for crimes that their own Tribunal now admits he wasnít responsible for, and was in fact trying to stop.

[1] ICTY, Karadzic Judgment, 24 March 2016, Para. 3460
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement.pdf >

[2] Ibid., Footnote 11027

[3] Ibid., Para. 3276

[4] Ibid., Para. 2709

[5] Ibid., Para. 2710

[6] Ibid., Para. 2685

[7] Ibid., Para. 2687

[8] Ibid., Para. 3288

[9] Ibid., Para. 3284

[10] Ibid., Para. 3289

[11] Ibid., Para. 3295

[12] Ibid., Para. 3290

[13] Ibid., Para. 3297

[14] Ibid., Para. 3293

[15] Ibid., Para. 3292

[16] Ibid., Para. 3280

[17] ICTY Case No. IT-02-54 Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, Decision on Assigned Counsel Request for Provisional Release, February 23, 2006

[18] Text of Slobodan Milosevicís Letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/sm030806.htm >

[19] Judge Kevin Parker (Vice-President of the ICTY), Report to the President of the ICTY: Death of Slobodan Milosevic, May 2006; ∂ 31, 76
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/custom2/en/parkerreport.pdf >

[20] U.S. State Dept. Cable #03THEHAGUE2835_a, " CTY: An Inside Look Into Milosevicís Health and Support Network" 
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/03THEHAGUE2835_a.html >

===  2 ===

Говор Момира Булатовића на седници Скупштини удружења „Слобода“



Треба почети са захвалношћу људима који су у тешким временима и незахвалним приликама водили Удружење „Слобода“. Ја одавно не учествујем у политичком животу,али у разговору са пријатељима из „Слободе“, са задовољством сам прихватио ову дужност .
Досадашњи резултати „Слободе “, нису импресивни али да будемо искрени, право је чудо и да постојимо у условима у којима смо деловали и били . 
Испричаћу вам један детаљ, за кога мислим да га и ви доживљавате, а мени се догодило на једној бензинској пумпи у Рашкој. Младић који је точио гориво ми је рекао да локална радио станица два пута дневно емитује последње јавно обраћање Слободана Милошевића грађанима из 2000 године . Рекао ми је да се масовно слуша зато што се никада теже није живело, а да је у Милошевићевом обраћању тада тачно предвиђено шта ће и како ће да нам се деси . И каже ми тај млади човек, који ће тог дана остати без посла, пошто сам му ја последњи купац који сипа гориво, да нико тада није био ни свестан тих пророчанских речи. С друге стране, на једном међународном научном скупу одржаном ових дана у Бијељини, о коме наша јавност није обавештена,јер су у питању Руси и њихов долазак на просторе Балкана, један млад, образован и бриљатан човек причао је како су они као матуранти, пре него ће добити дипломе отишли у војни одсек, задужили оружје и отишли да бране земљу и слободу. Када се вратио, разредна, онако одушевљена, му је рекла: „Ух, па ти си жив“. Дечко је тада имао потребу малтене да се извине. Узвратио сам му да треба да зна ко му је тада спасио живот и вратио га кући живог и здравог. Да је било по ономе како су се тада одвијале прилике; да није било мира у Дејтону и Слободана Милошевића, он не би седео ту, нити би било Републике Српске. И та свест се данас полако прима.
Искрен да будем ја нисам давао неки велики допринос Удружењу „Слобода “, али сам много више ја добио, него што сам дао у оној доследности која нас је овде све окупила. Ми смо имали привилегију да нисмо морали да поклекнемо ни пред било каквим теретом или било каквим искушењима. Зато знам када размишљамо о општим стварима, свако од нас може да буде миран и да каже: на правом смо путу.Схватиће се то пре или касније.
Величина Слободана Милошевића је била заправо у томе што се наслањао на најасније тековине и државне традиције, народа и земље које је представљао. То се не цени у датим политичким приликама, али не може да буде заборављено, уколико опстаје народ и држава. Код Слободана Милошевића у тим бескрајним и мени драгоценим данима, где смо се дружили и сарађивали, научио сам једну реченицу коју стално понављам. Он је говорио:„Момо , политика се не заснива на моралу, али је незамислива без морала“. И морал је био та одредница која се сада негде препознаје. А нарочито се добро препознаје онда када се изгуби .
Чини ми се да данас живимо у приликама када све више народа вапи за неким подсећањима и наш задатак је управо у томе. Ми смо давали онолико колико смо знали и могли у одбрани Слободана Милошевића у Хагу, који се одбранио на један бриљантан и чудовишан начин, плативши страшну и велику цену. А пошто сам био поред њега тих задњих дана, знам да је био потпуно миран и потпуно уверен у победу. Како је почео, тако је и овоземаљски живот завршио у једном снажном убеђењу .
Наш задатак је да наставимо са обиљежавањем свих ових вредности, да наставимо са праћењем датума који су непосредно везани за живот и судбину Слободана Милошевића. Да покушамо да изнађемо начина да ту елементарну истину о односу државе према тим људима изведемо на чистац. Покушаћемо да разговарамо са представницима Владе Србије и надам се да ћемо и ту направити неки искорак. Можда ће нам време ићи у прилог . 
Али овде постоји једна тужна истина , која је најтужнија због Србије – да ми данас у Србији имамо три врсте удовица, а требало би да буде само једна једина врста удовица.Требало би да држава поштује жене независно од тога да ли су оне биле са Јосипом Брозом, Слободаном Милошевићем или Зораном Ђинђићем. И то ћемо покушати да објаснимо људима из Владе .
Ми немамо политичких амбиција, нити желимо да се уплићемо у политички живот. Ми ходамо у духу са временом. Данас има много људи који су спремни да се укључе и помогну. Треба да успоставимо такав систем у који ћемо пропуштати нове људе на бази опредељења које они имају, а то је да наставе да се боре за оне вредности које већ сад симболизује Слободан Милошевић. Зато више нема потребе објашњавати шта стоји иза тога .Млади људи то најбоље знају. Зато је наш задатак да покушамо да одговоримо том изазову, рекао је на крају Момир Булатовић , нови председник Удружења „Слобода „

=== 3 ===

Madeleine Albright's Criminal Enterprise

By William Dorich

March, 2016—The UN war crimes tribunal has determined that the late Serbian president was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia during the 1992-95 war. The judges determined that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Bosnian Muslims and Croats.

The verdict of this Kangaroo Court in The Hague should not only outrage the people of Serbia, we should be seeing screaming headlines from all of those in the media that became the judge, jury and executioners of Slobodan Milosevic. The biased court to prosecute war crimes only for the war in former Yugoslavia was a ruse as the court totally ignored the real genocide in 1945 when 1.5 million Serbs, 60,000 Jews and 47,000 Roma were exterminated as the disgusting prejudice of the media fanned the flames for 96,400 victims on all sides in Former Yugoslavia in the 1990’s. This is the same media that profited from 8 years with their claim of “250,000 death in Bosnia,” a total media hoax.

At the DePaul University Law School in Chicago Mahmoud Cherif Bassiouni, an Egyptian-born Muslim and specialist in international law gathered 65,000 documents of so-called “war crimes,” a biased propaganda ploy paid for by Hungarian billionaire George Soros. Those documents sit on the floor today at The Hague and are treated as irrelevant trash.

Kalshoven, a prominent professor of international law at the University of Leiden, criticized the legal veracity of “evidence” of 20,000 alleged mass rapes gathered by the European Parliament’s Warburton Commission in 1993. Much of the same so-called evidence, derived from Bosnian government sources in Sarajevo and continuously embellished and recycled by hundreds of journalists and humanitarian organizations, found its way to the final report from the Commission of Experts to the U.N. Security Council and was forwarded to The Hague in May 1994. Bassiouni’s resurrection of rape estimates and numerical extrapolations were deceptions, said Kalshoven, in the campaign to exact “justice” against the Serbs using this biased research from DePaul. “It was just a number, just guesswork,” said Kalshoven.

The DePaul project’s yield of “65,000 documents” was produced, using Bassiouni’s “multiplier effect,” a comparatively modest roster of just 5,000 incidents of murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, mass graves and prison camps. Expected to produce evidence to support earlier claims of “50,000 rapes against Muslim women” from Bosnian government propagandists, the DePaul research ranged uncertainly between 500 to 1,673 alleged victims—but eventually fell back on its earlier investigation by the Commission of Experts which documented only 105 cases of rape. The rush to judgment was detoured through unthinkable shortcuts in comparison with the American judicial system, it included:

• Allowing substantial forfeiture of defense rights to cross-examine witnesses.
• Disallowing the rights of accused to confront their accusers.
• Permitting liberal use of hearsay and minimized requirements for production of forensic evidence if not allowing its outright absence.
• Depreciation of guarantees as equal protection under the law.
• And more repugnant to most of the thinking of the American legal system, the Tribunal with its selective oversight could bring defendants to trial again after acquittals therefore eliminating protection from double-jeopardy.

Conspicuously silent since March, 2016 and The Hague verdict are The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, CNN and The Times of London to name a few of the Partisan journalists who participated in “Advocacy” journalism to the detriment of Slobodan Milosevic and his right to “Equal Justice Under the Law” as etched over the doorway of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Where are the voices of Christiane Amanpour of CNN, Roy Gutman and John Burns who received a Pulitzer for their lies and deceptions in Bosnia? Where is Nicholas Burns and Amanpour’s husband James Rubin who was a regular on CNN spewing lies against Milosevic “guilt” for 8 years? Where is Carla Del Ponte when you need her? Where is Joan Phillips and Charles Lane who advanced their careers by promoting their own brand of propaganda? 

Where is James Harf of Ruder/Finn PR who made millions promoting known lies and fabrications for the Croat and Muslim governments? Where is Chris Hedges, Charlene Hunter Galt, media charlatans like Maggie O’Kane who broke the “camp story” in the British press...Do any of these hypocrites have a conscience to confess that they were part of a media conspiracy to destroy Serbia to assist the real “Criminal Enterprise” of Madeleine Albright’s State Department and Hillary Clinton’s desire to move Monica Lowinsky off of the front pages as she encouraged President Clinton to violate the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, the Geneva Conventions and the NATO Treaty to bomb the Serbs then lie about entering Bosnia under “Sniper Fire”?

Where is Tom Post who wrote the infamous front page article in Newsweek about “50,000 Bosnian Muslim Rapes”? Where is Sylvia Poggioli who skillfully wrote disinformation in the Neiman Report at Harvard, a piece of disinformation crap? Where is John Pomfret of the Washington Post who claimed he saw “4,000 men and boys from Srebrenica who made their way to safety in Tuzla,” his silence appears as though the media has gone into hiding as they continue to screw the Serbian people who are owed an explanation why the media used their power to distort the crisis to sell newspapers that helped to murder the Serbian president?

Where is David Rohde whose books and articles demonized the Serbian people with great cunning? And where is Carol Williams of the Los Angeles Times who wrote more hateful journalism, anti-Orthodox and pro-Catholic dogma in one year than most journalists could get away with in a decade?

And finally, where are creatures like Minna Schrag, Senior American prosecutor who was on loan to The Hague Tribunal from a New York law firm and who told international law scholars, “It was a novel experience to be deciding precedent on rules of evidence and procedure during impromptu conversations in the hallways at the Yugoslav Tribunal.”

If the media and the legal system is this corrupt and Serbians run for cover from the truth, then they deserve the contempt of a world that was hell bent to conspire against them—a world that deliberately manipulated the facts to demonize Serbs with collective guilt, unseen in Europe since Hitler, these are the monsters who made the word “Serb” synonymous with evil, an ugly process being used even today as they all congratulated themselves and give each other awards for being clever and deceitful as they cynically conspired to pull off media crimes against Serbia in violation of human rights that they professed to be defending. 

May they all rot in hell for this hideous stage managed legal charade. Albright, the stage manager, should be standing in the dock at The Hague along with General Wesley Clark and William Jefferson Clinton.

Wm. Dorich is author of six books on Balkan history.