Undead Milosevic invited to decide fate of Kosovo

[Dis]

ooh ooh, can we use this thread to say how wrong the war against Serbia was? Shame on Nato.

[BeBMan]

[Ninot]

I'm with Dis. Putting troops in Serbia only created more Islamic terrorists. BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

[Dis]

I was actually serious. Do we have the right to go destroying other goverments?

[BeBMan]

Of course, the Milosevic gov wasn't destroyed by the war, but some months later by other Serbians

Aside from that I think destroying govs can be fun, and if we don't do it from time to time the terrorists win

[Dis]

yeah it fun to watch on tv.

[Victor Galis]

I'm pretty sure I was against that one too. I can't remember that far back This just goes to show how full of crap I am. I claimed I became a pacifist on 9/11, when in reality I've been dirty bleeding-heart liberal way before then.

[Cort Haus]

Bebro, despite the contradictions I pointed out, that whole report by the ICTY on itself is dedicated to supporting ... itself.

If someone is accused of something, is it normal for the matter to be settled on the basis of a report by the accused? In the case of the bizarre world of the Hague, yes it is quite normal.

As Marco Milosevic says in his letter to Parker :

It is as if an accused committed a crime, leads the investigation, and comes to the expected conclusion that he is innocent. An accused may defend himself, but it is quite unusual that the accused himself leads the investigation, as was the case with your investigation and your report.

[Cort Haus]

Marko Milosevic's letter in full

MARKO MILOSEVIC'S LETTER TO THE ORGANS OF THE ICTY AND THE UNITED NATIONS REGARDING JUDGE PARKER'S INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
July 17, 2006


This is an open letter and is to be distributed to
The President of the ICTY
The Chairman of the Security Council of the OUN
The Secretary General of the OUN
It represents an official reaction of the family of Slobodan Milosevic to the report of ICTY concerning the causes of his death.



Mr. Parker,


I received your report concerning the causes of my father’s sudden and untimely death. Unfortunately, it is exactly as I expected it would be, and as I warned your deputy, the French judge with whom I spoke in The Hague, that it should not be.


First of all, I must note that your investigation was not initiated because of “media speculation that Slobodan Milosevic had been poisoned” as you put it. Your report's continuous justifications before media are both inadequate and insulting.


Although illegal, the ICTY owes explanations to the family of the deceased, the Security Council as the organ which founded ICTY, the General Assembly, the Secretary General, and to the public.


Secondly, neither we the family, nor the expert team of pathologists, which was familiar with my father’s health and was given the findings of the Dutch team, ever alleged the possibility of poisoning. To the contrary, I accepted the diagnosis of a heart attack (infarction) from the moment I heard it in The Hague. I warned both your deputy and the Dutch prosecutor not to vulgarize the investigation by setting-up a "straw man" accusation such as a violent murder or poisoning. The lines you have chosen to describe the “scene of crime” are naïve, vulgar and insulting. The report itself, if made by an independent institution, would have been at the very least disappointing. But, since it’s being issued by the Tribunal, the very institution which had a monopoly over my father’s health during his time in UN custody, it is shocking. It contains an unexpected number of contradictions. Its contents and conclusions are absolutely unacceptable to the sane mind.


Even if we had suspicions of poisoning, it would be pointless to try and prove them in conditions where the only possible culprit is the investigator. It is as if an accused committed a crime, leads the investigation, and comes to the expected conclusion that he is innocent. An accused may defend himself, but it is quite unusual that the accused himself leads the investigation, as was the case with your investigation and your report.


Should I mention the fact that the autopsy was conducted without the presence of the independent expert team sent by our family, even though we insisted on it? Or that the Russian doctors were denied the access to the body and the tissue samples? Or that we have been denied his blood samples? Now it happens that the Dutch medical institutions and doctors, which have already been gravely compromised in the eyes of the public through their involvement with the ICTY Prosecution in numerous manipulations with my father’s health, medical treatment, and respective diagnosis, were the only ones to manage the toxicology tests and announce their results?! Here I must remind you of my father's letter addressed to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which he wrote just hours before his death that he suspected he was being poisoned in the UNDU. So here we have a situation where we are witnessing numerous speculations regarding his blood samples, he expresses his worry about it, then he suddenly dies. Now comes this mysterious autopsy conducted by the very same people that he accused in his last hours, and they conclude that there was no poisoning. How credible does this sound even to you Mr. Parker? It is a pity that I am not in a position to ask Ms. Del Ponte an even simpler question – if he was ill, then why he wasn’t he given medical treatment when he asked for it? And if he wasn’t ill, then why did he die?



I understand that the you have set-up this straw-man accusation of poisoning, and now by finding that there was no poisoning you assert that the ICTY has been relieved of all responsibility for my father's death. Nevertheless, an unquestionable truth remains before the public, the image of my father addressing your so-called "trial chamber" and asking to be allowed medical treatment, and the "presiding judge" responding that he will not listen to him.



The question isn’t whether or not my father was murdered or poisoned. The point is that a former head of state, being held in UN custody, was gravely ill and constantly complaining of his medical condition. His health condition was assessed many times by medical experts as dire. He was denied adequate (if any) medical treatment, and then he died. At the same time those who denied him treatment were undeniably aware of what the consequences would be. He asked for provisional release to receive medical treatment. Dr. Shumilina warned on November 6th that his condition was so critical that he could die at any moment. Although you claim in your report (among many other contradictions, which I will not quote by number in this letter) that there was no suggestion by my father’s doctors that cardiac surgery was needed, even in your own report, in paragraph 65., you write:



(«On 20 December 2005 a formal motion was filed seeking Mr. Milošević’s provisional release to enable medical treatment at the Bakoulev Scientific Centre for Cardiovascular Surgery in Moscow. In addition to the reports of the three visiting doctors from November, a further email of Dr Shumilina dated 19 December 2005 to an assigned counsel for Mr. Milošević was relied on. In this email Dr Shumilina recommended the following additional tests: a complex ultrasonic of the vascular pathology, especially brachiocephal arteries and veins; echocardiography and stress echocardiography; Holter monitoring and daily monitoring of the blood pressure; “estimation” of the homeostasis: investigation of the brachiocephal and coronary vessels with contrast media; and PEI (position-emission imaging) of the brain and of the heart. Her email also indicated that endovascular or surgical decompression of the right vertebral artery, the stenting of brachiocephal or cardial arteries, carotid endarterectomy, or even bypass surgery may be necessary to perform.»)


The guaranties had been granted, and the ICTY ignored all of it. Obviously deliberately for they were aware of all the facts, both general and subtle. So he died.


The Tribunal, and everyone in charge, has committed a deliberate murder. They condemned him to death on February 24th when they rejected his request for provisional release, ignoring everything: his health condition, his rights, and the warnings of his doctors, which unlike the jail physician hired by the ICTY, had both – unquestionable competence and expertise, as well as his confidence. Ignoring even the guarantees of The Russian Federation (by the explanation that those guarantees lacked credibility, it seems that the Tribunal has given itself the mandate to evaluate the credibility of even the Security Council's permanent member states). The ruling handed down on February 24th came into effect on March 11th. That is the fact and the truth. Any other speculation is just evasive political maneuvering.


The statements and opinions of the ICTY Prosecution and the Dutch doctors have been completely disqualified. The Dutch doctors are going to be criminally prosecuted before the courts of their country. Ms Del Ponte was so keen to qualify my father as a guilty even though the trial had not been completed as to insist on his "suicide" before the autopsy had even taken place. In such circumstances, both the Dutch doctors and the entire Office of the Prosecutor lack any credibility for matters concerning my father, from responsibility for the crimes he was accused of to the circumstances of his death.


It is obvious that even without poisoning, murder, or anything similar, but with heart failure which you consider to be a "natural" death that the ICTY and the UN who created it bears the sole responsibility for my father’s death.


That “court” had already committed a series of violations against my father. It violated every rule and regulation known to modern civilization, both East and West. It failed to even comply with its own statute and rules. It ignored the guaranties given by permanent members of the UN Security Council, the very organ which created the ICTY. And finally, it deliberately led my father to his “natural” death.


As if that wasn’t enough, you produced this grotesque “investigation” which found that “he was not murdered”! With all this, it is clear that the Organization of United Nations will have to take the responsibility for the death of former President of Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and that the ICTY will have to be disbanded, as I told your deputy four months ago. I do not accept the explanations offered in your report. I find it visibly tuned to suit the ICTY Prosecutor’s Office, and most importantly it is obvious that it was produced to relieve the ICTY of responsibility, not to show the truth or bring justice.


I expect the superior organs of the Organization of the United Nations to reject your report and reconsider the legitimacy of ICTY, as well as the behavior and performance of its staff. I also expect that, for the sake of the integrity and credibility of OUN, that the ICTY will be brought to end.



Marko Milosevic
July 17, 2006

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by BeBro
Of course, the Milosevic gov wasn't destroyed by the war, but some months later by other Serbians

The war was part of a long campaign to destroy Serbia's resistance to external control.

Otpor were effectively run by Soros and other Western agencies. The trouble with the coup is that rather than using the ballot papers as evidence of the alleged electoral fraud, they burned them.

I was looking forward to seeing the evidence, but when the evidence is destroyed rather than displayed I can't help but be suspicious of it.

Aside from that I think destroying govs can be fun, and if we don't do it from time to time the terrorists win

A lame troll, rather than a serious comment I presume, as it was NATO's action that let the terrorist KLA win. Western pro-Islamist policy in the Balkans did much to encourage terrorism, no question about it.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Bebro, despite the contradictions I pointed out, that whole report by the ICTY on itself is dedicated to supporting ... itself.

Oh great, you quote stuff from it that supports your points (which seems to indicate that it is a rather balanced report), but when I do point out things from the same report that don't support your view the report itself becomes now too biased to be used?

[Cort Haus]

The point is that even within the generally-biased report, points can be found that contradict its overall position.

[BeBMan]

You seem to call everything biased which does not support your view. Would you say I can do that as well with points I don't like?

Why should I care for example about the letter you posted then? I can simply call it pro-Milosevic (not too far out since it's his relative), so too biased. Why should this particular kind of bias be more acceptable than the pro-ICTY bias? Why is something that contradicts the official version inherently superior to this official version?

Also the accusation of bias does not prove at all that certain points (like some in the report) are in the report just as a result of said bias and not as a result of a serious enquiry.

If you just pick the points you like from the report and dismiss everything else as display of bias without any consideration any discussion is rather a waste of time.

[Cort Haus]

I agree that the letter is biased in favour of the deceased. That is to be expected seeing as it's from his son. I posted it in full for context and reference, but the bit I quoted in the previous post, as part of my argument, still stands as a valid criticism of the report.

Relatives are supposed to be biased. Courts of Law are not.