Caricamento ...
Spiacenti, si è verificato un errore durante il caricamento del contenuto.

Freedom Fight in The Hague (9-10)

Espandi messaggi
  • jugocoord@libero.it
    FREEDOM ASSOCIATION SPECIAL BULLETIN No.9 May 28, 2002 WITNESSES PROVE PROSECUTION’S IMPOTENCE The impotence of The Hague Prosecution is more and more
    Messaggio 1 di 1 , 2 giu 2002
    Visualizza origine
    • 0 Allegato
      FREEDOM ASSOCIATION SPECIAL BULLETIN No.9
      May 28, 2002

      WITNESSES PROVE PROSECUTION’S IMPOTENCE

      The impotence of The Hague Prosecution is more
      and more obvious as days go by. As greater
      importance is given to some of the witnesses,
      as more evident is that the indictment is based
      on mounted and constructed evidence. The best
      proof comes from today's cross-examination of
      the protected witness K-5, whose identity is no
      secret to Yugoslav press, since in yesterday's
      papers appeared to be a certain Afrim Sijaku from
      the town of Urosevac.

      In any case, as the witness himself had said in
      his written statement, it is a man who has been
      charged for heavy felonies, such as thefts and
      assaults, who was a notorious drunkard, while
      as a police informer he was well into smuggling
      of narcotics and other mafia business. His
      testimonial was based on allegations that as
      a police informer he tipped the houses of Albanians
      linked to the KLA, either the individuals active
      within the terrorist organization, on the basis of
      what the Police executed alleged liquidations,
      arsons and plunders.

      However, on Milosevic's questions this witness,
      almost evidently scared, denied everything related
      to KLA crimes, under whose "treatment" he had been
      for several days, as he himself had admitted. While
      in his written statement he mentioned having been
      afraid of the KLA and of some other Albanians, today
      he denied it, even when judge May tried to help
      him by asking him whether he was afraid in the
      beginning, but not at this moment.

      Slobodan Milosevic asked the witness regarding
      criminal charges that have been pressed against
      him for several times, but he kept denying, even
      when Milosevic read the document numbers under
      which these charges were pressed - there had been
      ten in 1990 only, as was the case in all of the
      following years till 1995 - when he had spent
      nine months in prison. Those charges were mostly
      related to thefts, burglaries, assaults, etc.
      The witness, however, had no other explanation but
      to deny those facts.

      In his written statement, given to The Hague
      Prosecution representatives two years ago, this
      witness mentioned that, as a Serbian police informer,
      he was producing data on drug dealers and thieves.
      Still, he had no explanation whatsoever, how could
      he have had such data, if not because of being
      himself involved in the narcotics business. The
      same applied to him recalling the reasons for having
      been in prison in 1995 and how come the Serbian
      Police could not release him from serving his sentence.
      Beside that, his answers to Milosevic’s question
      about a Serb, with whom he allegedly had opened a
      restaurant and shared stolen goods, proved to be
      rather contradictory. He claimed the Serb was one
      of Arkan’s "Tigers", but later he testified that
      the man in question had served a four-year term in
      the Lipljan penitentiary, a period coinciding with
      the very length of existence of the so-called
      "Tigers". The witness never answered to Milosevic’s
      questions - has he been an informer for the sake of
      committing crimes much easier and has he been a
      thief himself. Sijaku’s testimonial has raised
      once again the issue of credibility of The Hague
      Prosecution, as well as of credibility of the very
      indictment against Milosevic, since it was obviously
      based on constructed facts and on witnesses
      especially trained for the job.

      ===*===

      FREEDOM ASSOCIATION SPECIAL BULLETIN No.10
      May 30, 2002

      THE MASSACRE IN RACAK FABRICATED

      As far as the cross-examination of the witnesses
      of The Hague Prosecution by Slobodan Milosevic goes
      on, it gets clearer that the alleged massacre of
      civilians was fabricated in order to serve to NATO
      aggressors as some kind of pretext to start the
      bombing of Yugoslavia.

      Yesterdays and today's testimony of the Canadian
      general Michel Maisoneuve, who was member of the
      OSCE Verification Mission and Head of the Prizren
      Regional Center, has shown that, too. From his
      testimony one could see that one of the key tasks
      of the Prosecution is to present Racak as a crime
      against civilians, in order to justify the NATO
      aggression. However, as much as the general tried
      to respond to the suggestive Prosecutor's questions
      and present the Racak events as a brutal crackdown
      of the Police with the locals, confronted with
      Milosevic's questions he seldom had to confess it
      was a conflict between the Police and the KLA
      terrorists. After all, the OSCE Mission itself
      confirmed that among the deads were KLA members as
      well.

      General Maisoneuve, for instance, on Milosevic's
      question could not deny that the Verification Mission
      made efforts to affirm the KLA as a legitimate side
      in the conflict, since he was the author of the mission
      document where this was explicitly specified and which
      Milosevic had quoted. Maisoneuve tried to present this
      as an attempt of the mission to establish trust. This
      way he also tried to justify the complaint raised by
      him and the mission as to why the investigation judge
      came to Racak the day after the event escorted by the
      Police. However, when asked if it meant that him and
      the mission are denying the sovereignty of Yugoslavia
      and Serbia on that part of their territory as well
      as the right of the legal authorities of the State
      to eliminate the terrorists who are violently
      struggling for secession, Maisoneuve had to confess
      that this would not be right and that he does not
      consider this was the task of the mission.

      Maisoneuve had to confess that in all of the
      occasions when OSCE Mission's verifiers were
      present, the Police behaved in a correct and
      professional way. In the OSCE reports, however,
      brutal crackdowns of Albanian civilians by the
      Serbian Police were mentioned, which was done
      according to the witness on the basis of
      testimonies of the Albanians. Maisoneuve had
      problems while explaining the allegations from
      the mission reports about Army tank and artillery
      attacks on Racak civilian homes from distance.
      On a direct question if there were any victims
      in Racak of these mortar attacks, the witness
      had to admit there were not, reducing his whole
      story on Army involvement to him being told by
      one of his verifiers that one tank had hit a
      house. He was also forced by Milosevic's cross-
      examination to deny that Army individuals have
      accused the Police for intervening in Racak.

      General Maisoneuve tried not to avoid answers to
      direct questions, so that Milosevic succeeded to
      make his answers more useful to the Defence than
      to the Prosecution. That is why judge May did his
      best to avoid such a situation. When asked by
      Milosevic if, after everything he found out so far
      about the Racak events he still personally considers
      there had been a massacre, May promptly intervened
      and explicitly prevented him from answering that
      question.

      A totally separate story are the Racak victims,
      for whom the OSCE mission chief William Walker
      affirmed they were civilian ones killed from a
      close range on the same spot, where the day after
      dead bodies were found. After the cross-examination
      of this witness, as well as of other ones before,
      it came out rather evident that these people
      perished in combat and were brought to one single
      spot in order to make it look as if they were executed.

      Milosevic has proved that serious fighting took
      place between the Police and the KLA forces,
      trenched around the village, and that the bodies
      were brought and grouped up after the Police and
      OSCE verifiers had withdrawn. This was evident from
      the position of the bodies, as well as from the
      findings of the forensic teams who examined them.

      After a series of usuccessful attempts to build-up
      a Walker's fabricated story about Racak through
      testimonies of witnesses, the prosecution attempted
      to bring one of its own investigators to appear as
      witness with special goal - to present to the court
      a "summary" of the events in Racak, based on written
      statements of "many witnesses" who did not appear,
      as well as on tons of "documents" collected by
      prosecution. After a sharp complaint by President
      Milosevic against the "indirect witnesses", the
      "trial chamber" decided not to accept testimony
      of the prosecution investigator Barney Kelly. This
      was considered by many as one of the greatest defets
      of the prosecution, since the begining of the "trial".

      ===*===

      To join or help this struggle, visit:
      http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
      http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
      http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
      Milosevic)
      http://www.jutarnje.co.yu/ ('morning news' the only Serbian newspaper
      advocating liberation)
    Il tuo messaggio è stato inviato correttamente e verrà recapitato a breve ai destinatari.