News Slobodan Milošević dies in prison cell

[RVBuckeye]

SelfAdjoint,
Well perhaps a conspiracy was taking place...but the Russian newspaper Pravda seems to be acting like the trial wasn't going great for the prosecution, and he might have been poisoned in an attempt to enact justice before the trial concluded.

Former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic feared he was being poisoned in his detention cell in The Hague, his lawyer Zdenko Tomanovic said on Saturday hours after the tribunal announced Milosevic's death.

"Today, I have filed an official request to the tribunal to have the autopsy carried out in Moscow, having in mind his claims yesterday that he was being poisoned in the jail," Tomanovic told reporters in The Hague.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/11-03-2006/77151-Milosevic-0

In the midst of his defence, after Carla del Ponte’s inept attempt at prosecution (many of her key witnesses turned out to be liars) Slobodan Milosevic was about to call some resounding names in international circles to the stand. Now, they will not have to go. How very convenient the “death” of Slobodan Milosevic is.

With the “disappearance” of an important witness in Milosevic’s trial, Milan Babic, through suicide, less than a week ago, the Hague detention centre could rightly be called Death Row and is evidently unfil to detain and protect prisoners.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/11-03-2006/77152-Slobodan_Milosevic-0

edit: spelling

 

[Hurkyl]

Would one of those baying for Milosevic's blood be kind enough to tell the rest of us exactly what he did.

One of them already did:

Trying to wipe out a race

We are talking about one man, who orchestrated the mass murder of a people.

and others have said:

when the accused genocide was taking place

So, I suspect they're talking about some alledged attempt at ethnic extermination.

 

[Astronuc]

So, I suspect they're talking about some alledged attempt at ethnic extermination.

Sort of like the alleged destruction of the World Trade Center.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sort of like the alleged destruction of the World Trade Center.

Allegations can be true, and they can be false. I felt no need to make a gratituous assertion when answering Art, and I'm rather irritated that you suggest I should have.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Here's some documentation, Hurkyl: http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports.html

For more, just google on Bosnia and genocide or on Sarajevo. It's not like this was a deep secret.

 

[Astronuc]

Allegations can be true, and they can be false. I felt no need to make a gratituous assertion when answering Art, and I'm rather irritated that you suggest I should have.

Hurkyl, I was being facetious, and I did not mean anything personal. I was not inferring you should have made any gratuitious assertion. In fact, I don't think you should.

At the same time, I am sensitive to terms like allegations when the evidence was literally piling up from the excavations of mass graves.

Milošević was given much more of a chance than he and his army gave thousands of Croats and Bosnians.

 

[Art]

I think you miss the point. The serb military went into their own province of Kosovo to fight terrorism by the KLA (a group the US gov't listed as a terrorist organisation btw.)

During the ensuing fighting there were without doubt attrocities committed by both sides for which the people responsible should be held accountable however there appears to be little evidence that Milosevic himself was involved in these attrocities other than at the level of ordering in his troops to quell terrorism which given the circumstances at the time most people would find a reasonable course of action to take.

The general consensus is that the prosecution's case against Milosevic was collapsing and so his death was rather fortuitous. The suggestion he caused it himself seems rather unbelievable unless they provided him with a chemistry set in his cell to formulate his own drugs.

The prison he was held in was not like the overcrowded prisons ordinary people are held in where opportunities exist for inmates to obtain non-prescribed drugs from outside. It only has 47 inmates and given the fact they have already lost a few and that a drug which canceled the therapeutic benefit of his prescribed drugs was found in his blood a few weeks ago it is difficult to imagine how precisely, he is supposed to have obtained more of the same. Plus why bother? Instead of going to the trouble of finding a frug to cancel a drug wouldn't it have been easier for him to just not take the prescribed medicine?

During the american civil war there were attrocities carried out by both sides. Only one person was ever charged in connection with these and he was a confederate. There was never any suggestion that Lincoln should stand trial for the behaviour of union soldiers, not then and not since so why the double standards?

Another aspect is that Milosevic's army is accused of killing civilians in their pursuit of KLA terrorists whilst he was fighting terrorism on his own soil whereas Bush has caused the deaths of many thousands of civilians whilst pursuing terrorists on someone else's soil and yet some of the same posters here who are quick to condemn Milosevic are strangely silent or even supportive of Bush's wars.

 

[Dawguard]

I think you miss the point. The serb military went into their own province of Kosovo to fight terrorism by the KLA (a group the US gov't listed as a terrorist organisation btw.)

During the ensuing fighting there were without doubt attrocities committed by both sides for which the people responsible should be held accountable however there appears to be little evidence that Milosevic himself was involved in these attrocities other than at the level of ordering in his troops to quell terrorism which given the circumstances at the time most people would find a reasonable course of action to take.

The general consensus is that the prosecution's case against Milosevic was collapsing and so his death was rather fortuitous. The suggestion he caused it himself seems rather unbelievable unless they provided him with a chemistry set in his cell to formulate his own drugs.

The prison he was held in was not like the overcrowded prisons ordinary people are held in where opportunities exist for inmates to obtain non-prescribed drugs from outside. It only has 47 inmates and given the fact they have already lost a few and that a drug which canceled the therapeutic benefit of his prescribed drugs was found in his blood a few weeks ago it is difficult to imagine how precisely, he is supposed to have obtained more of the same.

During the american civil war there were attrocities carried out by both sides. Only one person was ever charged in connection with these and he was a confederate. There was never any suggestion that Lincoln should stand trial for the behaviour of union soldiers, not then and not since so why the double standards?

Another aspect is that Milosevic's army is accused of killing civilians in their pursuit of KLA terrorists whilst he was fighting terrorism on his own soil whereas Bush has caused the deaths of many thousands of civilians whilst pursuing terrorists on someone else's soil and yet some of the same posters here who are quick to condemn Milosevic are strangely silent or even supportive of Bush's wars.

Do you know of any accurate books or websites about this? I don't know much about the conflict, and I'd like to research it before making any judgments about it. All I know is that the war had been going on for a long, long time before the US got involved.
Simply from a logical point of view, you make some very good points Art. While the death of citizens in war is tragic, the leaders cannot always be held to blame. There are some terrible story to come out of the civil war, but Lincon would never, ever be accused of war crimes. Also, if the murders were being committed by both sides, why is Milosevic the only one on trial? I'm very hesitant to pass judgement on a man who died under suspicious circumstances while in a prison cell.

 

[russ_watters]

That is an incredibly distorted view of what happened, Art. It does not fit the general consensus of the world community. A simple google will reveal that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/inside_kosovo/default.stm

Talking about small, individual, isolated crimes that occurred on both sides is a diversion: everyone understands that stuff like that happened (it happens in most wars), but that isn't what the Milo trial was all about. The trial was about proving Milo's involvement in the generally accepted facts that people were murdered en masse and others were driven from the country. That's not Mai Lai, that's genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Also, it certainly is true that the trial was on shaky ground, but that is not a reflection on the case for genocide/ethnic cleansing. The case for genocide/ethnic cleansing is rock-solid and not in dispute. The problem, as always, is proving the despot's personal involvement in it.

 

[Art]

That is an incredibly distorted view of what happened, Art. It does not fit the general consensus of the world community. A simple google will reveal that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/inside_kosovo/default.stm

Talking about small, individual, isolated crimes that occurred on both sides is a diversion: everyone understands that stuff like that happened (it happens in most wars), but that isn't what the Milo trial was all about. The trial was about proving Milo's involvement in the generally accepted facts that people were murdered en masse and others were driven from the country. That's not Mai Lai, that's genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Also, it certainly is true that the trial was on shaky ground, but that is not a reflection on the case for genocide/ethnic cleansing. The case for genocide/ethnic cleansing is rock-solid and not in dispute. The problem, as always, is proving the despot's personal involvement in it.

Russ please refrain from spurious general statements unsupported by facts. If you want to challenge something I said then do so but be specific.

You're creating a strawman arguement. The thread is not about Kosovo and war crimes committed there. I have already said I believe these happened and I also said the perpetrators should be brought to justice (from both sides). Including btw the Kosovan albanians who 'ethnically cleansed' serbs prior to and post the Serb and then NATO intervention.

The scale of killings in Kosovo is much smaller than you appear to think. NATO never got around to correcting the inaccurate figures of between 100,000 and 400,000 they publically branded as an excuse to intervene. The actual total number of Kosovan albanians confirmed killed was 2,108 with UN estimates putting the final anticipated figure at between 5,000 and 11,000. nb http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/517168.stm This figure includes kosovan albanian combatants and non combatants and kosovan serb civilians as there was no way for the UN investigative teams to distinguish between them. Also Bear in mind there were many firefights between the 1000s of KLA supporters and the serb security forces (resulting in the deaths of 300 serbian soldiers) and so it is reasonable to assume a large proprtion of these dead were in fact enemy combatants. It is perhaps worth noting that even the total figure falls somewhat short of the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the first 48 hours of Bush's attack on Iraq.

It is also of interest that NATO operations resulted in the deaths of ~500 civilians despite their assurances that everything humanly possible was being done to avoid civilian casualties. This figure represents only those deaths conclusively verified by Human Rights Watch and is substantially lower than the 5,700 civilian deaths claimed by the Yugoslav gov't. Given that the number of serb military NATO killed was 476 it would appear that the serbs attempt at genocide was relatively less damaging to the civilian population than NATO's peace keeping.

If you want a more detailed discussion on this subject then start a thread about it. It might even be an interesting discussion as it appears that few of the posters to this thread have any knowledge of the background.

However this thread is about Milosevic. I took exception to the fact that some people here were assuming his guilt and damning him to hell without apparently the faintest notion of the facts surrounding the ongoing court case convened to establish whether or not he was guilty of complicity in genocide. A case which you admit was not going well for the prosecution.

People seem to forget that following the Dayton peace accord (after the first 3 wars) the western media were hailing Milosevic as the great peace maker.

 

[Dawguard]

However this thread is about Milosevic. I took exception to the fact that some people here were assuming his guilt and damning him to hell without apparently the faintest notion of the facts surrounding the ongoing court case convened to establish whether or not he was guilty of complicity in genocide. A case which you admit was not going well for the prosecution.

People seem to forget that following the Dayton peace accord (after the first 3 wars) the western media were hailing Milosevic as the great peace maker.

Thank you Art, you are a voice of reason.

 

[Hurkyl]

At the same time, I am sensitive to terms like allegations when the evidence was literally piling up from the excavations of mass graves.

Would you care to suggest a different term for "allegation" that will not cause you to respond as if I said the allegations were false?

 

[russ_watters]

You're creating a strawman arguement. The thread is not about Kosovo and war crimes committed there. I have already said I believe these happened and I also said the perpetrators should be brought to justice (from both sides). Including btw the Kosovan albanians who 'ethnically cleansed' serbs prior to and post the Serb and then NATO intervention.

Art, that's your strawman, not mine. You brought it up as a diversion.

However this thread is about Milosevic. I took exception to the fact that some people here were assuming his guilt and damning him to hell without apparently the faintest notion of the facts surrounding the ongoing court case convened to establish whether or not he was guilty of complicity in genocide. A case which you admit was not going well for the prosecution.

Everyone knew OJ did it too, Art. That the legal case was on shaky ground doesn't mean he didn't do what he was accused of. and people are free to form their own opinions.

People seem to forget that following the Dayton peace accord (after the first 3 wars) the western media were hailing Milosevic as the great peace maker.

Another strawman, Art. Does the fact that Hitler was once hailed as a peacemaker mean the Holocaust didn't happen?

 

[Astronuc]

Would you care to suggest a different term for "allegation" that will not cause you to respond as if I said the allegations were false?

Hurkyl - I do not imply that you were implying the allegations are or might be false.

The term "allegation" or adjective "alleged" is often used, particluarly by those skeptical of given legal or judicial matter, i.e. crime, indictment, . . . .

I wasn't necessarily sensitive the term as used, as much as the general usage in the media and by governments.

 

[Art]

Art, that's your strawman, not mine. You brought it up as a diversion. Everyone knew OJ did it too, Art. That the legal case was on shaky ground doesn't mean he didn't do what he was accused of. and people are free to form their own opinions. Another strawman, Art. Does the fact that Hitler was once hailed as a peacemaker mean the Holocaust didn't happen?

Is this the quality of rebuttal argument allowed on this site? I suppose this is where I cite Godwin's law and claim victory.

Seriously though I thought the intention of the new guidelines was to improve standards not eliminate them?

I found updated figures for the total number of people killed in the Kosovan conflict. It was 4300 bodies found and 3,525 reported missing and unaccounted for and so the maximum possible number of fatalities was 7,825. Again this includes combatants and non-combatants from both sides during a war! Hardly a figure that would make one jump to the conclusion that genocide was taking place.

This is very like the situation with Iraq where people still believe Sadam had WMD and links to 9/11. It seems people find it very hard to unlearn something they have learned even when new evidence is presented. The initial lie from people such as Defense Secretary William Cohen who claimed "100,000 males of military age are missing, probably murdered" is what seems to stick in people's minds. btw they never found the mass graves they said they would in Iraq either which begs the question how many people were really being murdered by Sadam's regime each year?.

Another Case of Mass Deception?
by Lawrence Martin

Where are the bodies? Was the other big war of the last decade, Kosovo in 1999, triggered by bogus allegations as well? Another case of mass deception?

In Iraq, it's the missing mass weapons of destruction. In Kosovo, it's the missing mass graves.

In alleged ethnic cleansing exercises by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, as many as 100,000 to 200,000 civilians were said to have gone missing or been killed in Kosovo, many of them buried in mass graves. Members of a Canadian forensic team to the Serbian province have come forward to label the numbers nonsense. No mass graves, they say, and, on both the Albanian and Serb sides, only a few thousand dead. A mockery of the numbers used to justify the war.
<snip>
The latest person to debunk the genocide numbers is retired Vancouver homicide detective Brian Honeybourn, a member of the forensic team. He told The Ottawa Citizen this week that his nine-member group found mainly single graves, with a couple of exceptions being one of 20 bodies and another 11. He wonders how genocide charges against Mr. Milosevic can stand up. "It seems as though The Hague is beginning to panic
<snip>
If the forensic teams' stories are correct, the missing dead in Kosovo is indeed a scandal comparable to the absence of WMD in Iraq. In a five-year period, political leaders twice duped their populations into going to war.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0902-02.htm

It seems the 'serendipitous' death of Milosevic saved a lot of people from embarrassment. He could hardly be found guilty of a crime that was never committed, a ruling that could have initiated charges against Blair and Clinton amongst others for waging an illegal war.

 

[Cyrus]

In light of the new information on the WMD's the argument about an illegal war does not hold weight. Sadam had to tell his own generals there were no WMD's just before the war started. So even if there were informants in iraq, they were lead to believe there were WMD's as well. He was trying to create fear by doubt, and it backfired.

It seems people find it very hard to unlearn something they have learned even when new evidence is presented.

I could say the same to you.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, that was not fair of me to say that. I thought about this new piece of news with a little more care, and have to change what I said. Turns out that it really does not change much. The intelligence agencies pre-Iraq war were telling the president that there was NOT enough evidence to prove WMD's were in Iraq anymore. It was just based on intelligence from unreliable and outdated sources. Hypothetically speaking, had they somehow gotten information covertly from a top general, then that would change things. But they did not, and so in reality nothing has changed. I am not sure how you could claim the war to be illegal though.

 

[Art]

Actually, that was not fair of me to say that. I thought about this new piece of news with a little more care, and have to change what I said. Turns out that it really does not change much. The intelligence agencies pre-Iraq war were telling the president that there was NOT enough evidence to prove WMD's were in Iraq anymore. It was just based on intelligence from unreliable and outdated sources. Hypothetically speaking, had they somehow gotten information covertly from a top general, then that would change things. But they did not, and so in reality nothing has changed. I am not sure how you could claim the war to be illegal though.

Ahem, Cyrus cool your jets , it was the NATO action in Kosovo I referred to as illegal i.e. An aggressive act of war, no UN mandate, justification through deception etc. etc.. Iraq is another (albeit illegal) matter but not for this thread.

 

[Art]

Presumably those who claimed Milosevic as commander in chief of serbian armed forces must have known and was therefore responsible and accountable for war crimes committed by his men and his allies, will now support Bush being handed over to the War Crimes tribunal for the murderous rampages his soldiers have been on in Iraq.

Iraqi residents say bodies in video from US raid
A video of civilians who may have been killed by US Marines in an Iraqi town in November showed residents describing a rampage by US soldiers that left a trail of bullet-riddled bodies and destruction.

A copy of the video, given to Reuters by Iraq's Hammurabi Organisation for Monitoring Human Rights and Democracy, showed corpses lined up at the Haditha morgue.

The chief doctor at Haditha's hospital, Waleed al-Obaidi, said the victims had bullet wounds in the head and chest.

On November 20, US Marines spokesman Captain Jeffrey Pool issued a statement saying that, on the previous day, a roadside bomb had killed 15 civilians and a Marine.

In a later gunbattle, US and Iraqi troops had killed eight insurgents, he said.

US military officials have since confirmed to Reuters that that version of the events of November 19 was wrong and the 15 civilians were not killed by the blast but were shot dead.

Time magazine said this week the video of the corpses it provided to the military in January had prompted the revision.

Probe begins into claims US soldiers killed Iraqi family
The US military says it is investigating Iraqi police allegations that its soldiers shot dead a family of 11 in their home last week.

The probe comes a day after a magazine published allegations that US Marines killed [15] civilians in another town in November.

A criminal inquiry into those deaths was launched last week.

Time magazine says a patrol went on a rampage after one of their comrades was killed by a roadside bomb in Haditha, west of Baghdad.

It published detailed accounts by townspeople.

Last Wednesday in Ishaqi, north of Baghdad, police accused US troops of shooting dead 11 people, including five children, while the military said only four people were killed in all.

"Because of that discrepancy, we have opened an investigation," Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, a senior US spokesman in Baghdad, said.

Accusations that American soldiers often kill innocent people has fuelled anger at the occupation among Iraqis over the past three years.
<snip>
Police in Ishaqi, 100 kilometres north of the capital, said five children under school age, four women and two men were shot dead by troops in a house that was then blown up.

"It's a clear and perfect crime without any doubt," local police Colonel Farouq Hussein said at the time, saying autopsies had found that all the victims were shot in the head.

The bodies, their hands bound, had been dumped in one room before the house was destroyed, Colonel Hussein said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1597906.htm

Somebody (I think Russ) asked sometime ago if anybody actually thought the US troops would target civilians. Well this seems to answer that question in the affirmative.

 

[russ_watters]

You of course know there is a difference between knowing about it and ordering it...

 

[selfAdjoint]

You of course know there is a difference between knowing about it and ordering it...

Well the government is trying to convict Mousassoui of felony murder for allegedly knowing about the 9-11 plot and not informing the FBI, but not for ordering it, so maybe it's a question of whose ox is gored?

 

[Art]

You of course know there is a difference between knowing about it and ordering it...

I do but it seems some of the posters at the start of this thread didn't, including yourself. But not to get hung up on semantics perhaps I should point out that Milosevic was never accused of ordering genocide. Following his initial arrest for alleged involvement in war crimes in Kosovo it quickly became clear for the reasons I've already stated these charges weren't going to go too far and so they added new indictments. He was accused of assisting serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo and so setting in train a string of events where "genocide was a forseeable consequence". All this despite the fact that after the Dayton agreement he was lauded as the region's peacemaker for forcing concessions from the Croat and Bosnian serbs, who had been fighting civil wars in their own countries, and so ending the conflicts.

Some people here were very insistant that Milosevic was guilty of genocide in Kosovo when in fact it has since been proven there was no genocide for him to be guilty of. There were only isolated incidents of soldiers going on a personal rampage - the same as some US troops in Iraq. So if Milosevic deserved to be dragged off to the international court for that then so does Bush. In fact more so. At least Milosevic's troops were acting on their own soil, the US troops are doing it in someone else's country and the civilian death toll (from forseeable consequences) is far higher.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well the government is trying to convict Mousassoui of felony murder for allegedly knowing about the 9-11 plot and not informing the FBI, but not for ordering it, so maybe it's a question of whose ox is gored?

Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism
Transcending National Boundaries
(18 U.S.C. §§ 2332b(a)(2) & (c))
(Count One)

Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy
(49 U.S.C. §§ 46502(a)(1)(A) and (a)(2)(B))
(Count Two)

Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft
(18 U.S.C. §§ 32(a)(7) & 34)
(Count Three)

Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction
(18 U.S.C. § 2332a(a))
(Count Four)

Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1114 & 1117)
(Count Five)

Conspiracy to Destroy Property
(18 U.S.C. §§ 844(f), (i), (n))
(Count Six)

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm

All the charges here are for conspiracy, not the actual act. That's a bit different.

 

[russ_watters]

Well the government is trying to convict Mousassoui of felony murder for allegedly knowing about the 9-11 plot and not informing the FBI, but not for ordering it, so maybe it's a question of whose ox is gored?

Moussasoui was part of the conspiracy, and plead guilty to those charges, sA. He's already been convicted.

He was not charged with murder, afaik (do you have some info on that...?). He couldn't be, since he wasn't involved in the events of 9/11 - iirc, he was in jail on 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4471019.stm

Moussaoui, a 37-year-old French citizen of Moroccan origin, pleaded guilty last April to conspiring with the 19 men who carried out the suicide hijacking attacks on New York and Washington.

He admitted four charges that carry the death penalty - conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, to commit aircraft piracy, to destroy aircraft and to use weapons of mass destruction.

He also admitted conspiracy to kill US government officials and destroy US government property - two lesser offences.

 

[russ_watters]

I do but it seems some of the posters at the start of this thread didn't, including yourself.

Excuse me? Are you typing backwards? You are the one who just equated the two, not me. I was quite explicit in stating that the issue was his "involvement".

This really is surreal, Art - you say something that is wrong, I point out to you that it is wrong, then you deny you said it and claim I said it! You do know we can all read all the posts in this thread, right?

 

[Art]

Excuse me? Are you typing backwards? You are the one who just equated the two, not me. I was quite explicit in stating that the issue was his "involvement".

This really is surreal, Art - you say something that is wrong, I point out to you that it is wrong, then you deny you said it and claim I said it! You do know we can all read all the posts in this thread, right?

Perhaps you should reread the posts. Your mail pointing out the difference between knowing about something and ordering something appeared to suggest that you believed Milosevic ordered the war crimes as simply knowing about them is obviously not a crime.

If that's not what you meant then I have no idea what point you were trying to make. Do you?