|
|
Justice at the Hague  |
 Between 1994 and 1995, the War Crimes Tribunal received
from the US government $700,000 cash and $2.3 million worth of computer
equipment. From the Rockefeller foundation it received $50,000 and from
the US Multi-Millionaire speculator, George Soros, $150,000. Soros was
financing, at the same time, the main Albanian separatist newspaper in
Kosovo. - by Michel Collon
|
If they tell us that everything that has happened in
Yugoslavia is the fault of one man, all the while hiding the manoeuvring
by the German and subsequently the American Secret Services to blow to
pieces this too independent country, and remaining silent on the arms they
furnished to the enemies of the Serbs, long before these wars;
If
they hide the discreet but revealing words with which Clinton and other US
and NATO leaders admitted that they were carrying out this war on behalf
of Globalisation, the Multinationals and the control of the oil supply
lines;
If they admit today that public opinion was manipulated with
regard to the true reasons for past wars(Korea, Suez, Algeria, the Gulf)
as well as with regard to the crimes committed by the armies of the West
during those wars, but that in recent wars everything was better and the
media told the truth;
If the media Magnates persist in courageously
refusing all debate on the recent media lies;
If the Western
leaders affirm in 1998 that the KLA is a terrorist organisation, in 1999
that it is not at all and that in 2001 it most certainly is,
If
they want to make us believe that justice will be done by a tribunal that
has no legal basis, largely funded from not disinterested private finance
(Soros, Rockefeller, Time WarnerS), a tribunal that has no respect for any
of the basic principles of law (not least of which is the presumption of
innocence until proved guilty) a tribunal that changes the rules every
time that it suits it to do so and which refuses to try the crimes
committed in ex-Yugoslavia by Washington�s prot�g�s, not to mention NATO�s
own crimes;
If they claim that it was right to wage war and kill
thousands of civilians to put in power a democratic and legalist president
when the deportation of Milosevic was carried out in violation of the laws
of Yugoslavia, of its government and of its judicial system;
If
they claim that the criteria of what is democratic or not in the world
must be fixed by a United States President, elected by a quarter of the
population (without the vote of the poor), once billions of dollars from
the multi-nationals have limited the choice to two bought candidates and
once public opinion has been totally manipulated by the most stupefying
media in the world;
If they tell us that such a President can put
in power, arm, finance and protect Mobutu, Sharon and Pinochet and nearly
all the military dictators in the world for the last fifty years, while
claiming the right to condemn the Heads of State they do not
like.
If they tell us that the United States leadership can
assassinate with immunity, legally elected Heads of State Allende,
Lumumba, six attempts on the life of Castro and many others while
retaining the right to kidnap any Third World leader who resists
Globalisation (of course after skilfully orchestrated media demonisation);
Then I say they are taking us for a bunch of
idiots.
"International War Crimes Tribunal": Financed by the
United States Government and US Multinationals. It's as if Washington
itself were to try Milosevic!
The "Tribunal" is only interested
in putting Milosevic on trial - not Sharon, nor Pinochet nor the Murderer
Generals from Turkey: Is it impartial? Financed by the United States
government and by Americain millionaires, it refuses to investigate the
war-crimes committed by NATO and by the Albanian terrorists: Is it
independent? Its modus-operandi throws overboard numerous principles of
law: Is it legal? We have a portrait of a very bizarre
"Tribunal"
Should Milosevic go on trial in the Hague? Whatever your
opinion of the former President of Yugoslavia (and on the people really
responsible for the wars in the Balkans) should he not have the same right
as any other man to be tried by a fair and neutral tribunal that respects
the law?
According to article 16 of the statute book of this famous
War Crime Tribunal, the Prosecutor is to act independently and not be
subject to orders from any government. According to article 32, the
expenses of the tribunal must be covered by the United Nations Budget.
These two principles are constantly being thrown out of the window. The
President of the Tribunal, Gabriella Kirk McDonald, herself, told the
United States Supreme Court ""We benefited from the strong support of
concerned governments and dedicated individuals such as Secretary
Albright. As the permanent representative to the United Nations, she had
worked with unceasing resolve to establish the Tribunal. Indeed, we often
refer to her as the "mother of the Tribunal". What a charming mother! She
declared on national television that sending five hundred thousand Iraki
children to their death was "justified"!
When the War Crimes
Tribunal�s Chief Prosecutor, Louise Arbour indicted Milosevic, guess whom
she informed firstS Bill Clinton two days before informing the rest
of the world. Like her successor, Carla Del Ponte, she often appeared in
public with US officials. In 1996 she met the Secretary-General of NATO
and its European Commander in Chief "to discuss the logistics of
co-operation," before signing a "memorandum of mutual
understanding".
So who is paying the Piper?
Well,
between 1994 and 1995, the War Crimes Tribunal received from the US
government $700,000 cash and $2.3 million worth of computer equipment.
From the Rockefeller foundation it received $50,000 and from the US
Multi-Millionaire speculator, George Soros, $150,000. Soros was financing,
at the same time, the main Albanian separatist newspaper in Kosovo. Other
donors: The giant Time Warner media empire (this might explain some of the
media silence on the dark sides of the War Crimes Tribunal). And then
there is the Oh, so official "Institute for Peace" set up by President
Reagan. A large number of the War Crimes Tribunal lawyers come from the
Coalition for International Justice, founded and financed by S. Yes,
you�ve guessed George Soros. In May 2000 its lady President McDonald
thanked the US government for "generously providing $500,000." " The moral
imperative to end the violence in the region is shared by all, including
the corporate sector, she said. I am pleased, therefore, that a major
corporation has recently donated computer equipment worth three million
dollars".
With sponsors such as these, it is easy to understand why
the War Crimes Tribunal
only pursues the enemies of the United States.
That is why the Croat and Muslim Nationalist
leaders remain unpunished
for their crimes of ethnic cleansing during the wars of 1991 to
1995.
Likewise the leaders of the KLA and of NATO who were responsible for an
illegal war
and for deliberately destroying the civil infrastructure of
Yugoslavia and for using
unlawful weapons (cluster bombs and depleted
uranium bombs). Here are the real reasons for
pursuing
Milosevic:
1) An attempt to lay guilt on the Serbian people as a
whole and thereby hide the fact that the USA and Germany provoked and
encouraged the wars in Yugoslavia.
2) The wish to intimidate a Head of
State who resisted globalisation.
3) The need to whitewash NATO�s
criminal war, whose pretences and media-lies have fallen
through.
Sources: "An Impartial Tribunal, really?" by the Canadian
lawyer Christopher Black and the "Illegal basis of the War Crimes
Tribunal" by the Yugoslav lawyer Kosta Cavoski http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski.
10
principles of law violated by the International War Crimes Tribunal
The Tribunal, in fact, betrays several totally fundamental principles of
law: the separation of power (executive, legislative and judicial),
equality between prosecution and defence, presumption of innocence till
proved guiltyS.
1) The International War Crimes Tribunal was
founded in 1993 by the United Nations Security Council (15 members
dominated by the great powers and the US veto) on the insistance of
Senator Albright. The normal channel for creating such a tribunal, as the
United Nations Secretary General pointed out at the time, would have been
"via an International Treaty established and approved by the Member States
permitting them full exercise of their sovereignty.** However, Washington
imposed an arbitrary interpretation of Chapter VII of the United Nations
Charter, that allows the Security Council to take "special measures" to
restore International peace. Is the Creation of a Tribunal a "special
measure"? Hardly. The International War Crimes Tribunal itself is not
legal.
2) Without precedent in the history of law, the Tribunal was
empowered with the task of setting up its own laws and regulations
regulations that it has in fact modified frequently. Through a totally
ludicrous procedure for making changes, the President can make them on his
own and have them ratified by fax by the other judges! (rule 6).
3)
Here�s another creative innovation. The laws of the International War
Crimes Tribunal can be retrospective - edited and tailored to fit the
facts after the event.
4) Worse still: the Prosecutor can also change
these rules (the defence can�t). And there is no "investigating judge"
enquiring into charge and counter-charge. The Prosecutor conducts the
enquiry any way he pleases.
5) The Court can refuse a defence lawyer or
simply not listen to him if it finds him "aggressive" (rule 46).
6) The
Prosecutor can with the approval of the judges, refuse to allow council
for the defence to consult certain books, documents, photos and other
material proofs (rule 66).
7) Moreover, the source of testimony and
information can stay secret. This means that the CIA agents can fill their
dossiers with illegally gathered accusations (through phone tapping,
corruption, theft) without having to submit to any kind of verification or
cross-examination.
8) Representatives of other States (participants in
the conflict, but allied to the United States) can also submit
confidential information without having to undergo any questioning
whatsoever.
9) An indictment can remain secret "in the interests of
justice" (rule 53), so the accused cannot defend himself in the normal
way.
10) A suspect, i.e. someone who has not even been indicted, can be
detained for ninety days before being charged ample time to extract
a forced confession. Then rule 92 stipulates than confessions will be
deemed trustworthy unless the accused can prove the contrary. Whereas,
everywhere else in the world, the accused is presumed innocent until
proved guilty.
No national tribunal, in the United States or
anywhere else in the world would operate in such a blatantly unlawful or
arbitrary manner. But when it comes to condemning the enemies of the
United States of America principles of law no longer count. According to
the masters of the world, right belongs to the strongest and the
richest.
* Speech at the Council for International Relations, New
York, 12th May 2000.
** Report No X S/25704, section 18.
Michel
Collon
1st July 2001
Quotes and sources available in the book NATO
and World Conquest (in various languages) see site
www.lai-aiborg/balkans.
7/05/2001 |
| Start a
debate |
|
