[there is no such thing as *natural* death when a person has been stripped of
all freedoms, even his passport, and his rights as a citizen, and is
kept incarcerated by foreign powers, like a prisoner of war. ]
[Failure to convict is temporary;
a wrongful death is irreversible.]
Just a brief comment from r.k.kent.
"The Real Autopsy."
Suggests strongly that Milosevic's body is
the wrong body for a badly needed autopsy. ANYONE WHO
BELIEVES THAT HE "DIED OF NATURAL CAUSES" OR that he
"KILLED HIMSELF" must believe that the earth is flat;
or, that S.M has a doctorate in herbal and standard
Medecine; Or, yet, that Mickey is a mouse, alive and
well. So, the body that badly neds an autopsy is the
half-dead,half-living vampire called ICTY (ikty)that
dreads only two things -a stake through its heart and
sunlight. The stake? Demand a Cut-off for ikty's funds
and expose private donations in money to merciless and
relentless criticism. The sunlight? Detailed but not
too-technical autopsy of this money-sucking vampire to
show its crimes as it operated over the years so that
ANYONE can view the naked and ugly apparition...as
real or alleged war criminals are tried in high courts
of their own provenance.
Raymond Kent
'''''''''''''''''''
From: "Nicole Petrin"
Date: 14 March 2006 20:16:34 GMT
Subject: Milosevic
MEMO TO ALL CORRESPONDENTS:
I have been asked who I think killed Milosevic, and also Milan Babic.
They were both killed while in the *care* of the World Court, but I
don't think they were killed by order of anyone within the Court, at
however high a level. The Court is a mere instrument of powerful
occult interests, and makes no such decisions, I am sure.
Of course, the murders could not have been committed without the
participation of the personnel; the problem with these institutions
which are accountable to no one in the universe, is that their
hierarchy is a blind, you never really know who makes the decisions,
or how orders travel down the chain of command. That is also true of
corporations and institutions which have been corrupted by organized
crime.
Incidentally the usual mental image which the word *anarchist* evokes
in people's minds is that of a wild eyed revolutionary throwing bombs,
some iconic image like Che Guevara. But for me, after decades of
involvement in the seamy side of politics, the word *anarchist* brings
to mind a large, sleek banker, in a pin-stripe suit, with a falsely
benevolent mask on his heavy features, handing out money to government
people, in order to subvert the law, or engineer conflicts, or
whatever short term, antisocial predatory project he has going.
Another image is that of a well dressed couple, playing polo with the
Prince of Wales... while running an underground army of petty
criminals.
The murderers of Milosevic and Babic are evidently some of these
well-dressed anarchists. But which ones?
I have just finished reading the biography of Pamela Churchill
Harriman who with her husband Averell put the Democrats back on the
map during the eighties, and prepared Clinton's victory in 1992.
Averell Harriman was American ambassador to Moscow, and was deeply
into what he called East-West affairs. Averell Harriman was the not
very bright, polo-playing son of a robber baron. He had no cultural
or humanitarian cares whatsoever. I can only think that his deep
interest in Eastern Europe was predatory: the vast riches in its
ground.
The story of how the Harrimans put the Democrats back on the map after
Carter's defeat includes a large roster of high profile people, who
later played a key role in the Balkans: Richard Holbrooke, Cyrus
Vance, Madeleine Albright... These people were significant team
players for the backers of the Democrats, long before Clinton was
selected as their candidate, and long before he chose them for his
administration.
During the eighties, Milosevic was a member of this *set*, the
Democrats in exile. Later he became their victim, same as Bush and
bin Laden, Saddam Hussein... it's a well established pattern in
American foreign policy. Maybe Steve Harper will end up at The Hague
some day, or in Guantanamo.
The Republicans are in deep doo-doo (to use their own lingo, I think
it was Bush senior who launched this pretty phrase). Their war in
Iraq may have succeeded in one goal only: they prevented Iraq from
switching to the Euro. For the rest, it did so much damage to the US
currency and economy, that they might as well have allowed the Iraqi
to go Euro. Now they want to prevent Iran from going Euro, and are
attempting a two prong attack, from Iraq and Afghanistan... a
misbegotten scheme which has zero chance of success. It's like a car
going at 30 mph along city streets, dodging traffic lights, trying to
catch up with a train speeding at 70 mph... on a free track.
The Democrats are watching: they know that the Republicans have the
proverbial snowball's chance at the next elections. The Democrats
will campaign on an anti-military platform in order to sink Bush under
the weight of his insane wars... but of course they cannot afford that
their own disastrous Balkan involvement be brought up against them.
Milosevic knew where the bodies were buried. He knew too much. He
could not be allowed to defend himself.
As for the International Tribunal, it merely announced the death by
suicide of Milan Babic. No inquest. Bureaucrats are not empowered to
call any death suicide: only a coroner or suitable magistrate has the
authority to examine the evidence (medical, forensic, police, etc) and
rule if a death is suicide. No such procedure was applied in the case
of Milan Babic. In the case of Milosevic, an autopsy was performed
only because it was demanded, and scandal threatened, not as a matter
of standard practice.
In any case, an autopsy by itself cannot establish suicide; it
provides only *some* of the evidence upon which a coroner or
equivalent magistrate may rule. For instance, forensic analysis may
determine that some illegal substances are found in the body but the
forensic officer many not testify under what circumstances these
substances were administered; that's part of the police's
investigation. Likewise the forensic officer cannot testify to the
state of mind of someone he only met as a corpse. Witnesses who knew
the deceased person may do so, but they will of course be
cross-examined before their testimony can be accepted as evidence.
A judicial body which pretends to teach the world justice must itself
operate by impeccable standards. In the case of Babic and Milosevic,
you cannot have clearer proof that The Hague is a kangaroo court. A
responsibly run penal system will not allow the death of an
incarcerated person, or one on remand, to happen without holding an
inquest into the circumstances of this death. If the person was
suicidal, the judicial body responsible for him should have known that
he was suicidal, and should have appointed a psychiatrist to look
after him. A death in captivity is prima facie evidence for the
failure of the institution responsible for the person's care.
Whichever way you look at it, Milan Babic's demise is a wrongful death
while in the custody of a judiciary institution. The same is true of
Milosevic. A man in custody has no access to rare, prescription-only
drugs, like the TB, leprosy antibiotics which he is alleged to have
taken without permission. As for claims that he refused to take the
drugs which were prescribed for him, again, this contradicts the other
scenario: keep the story straight, please O Spin-Doctor, did he die
because of drugs he took, or did not take?
Above all, however, a prisoner on remand must be kept in the best of
health, even against his will. The Court had the power to force him
to take prescribed medication, even if he refused to take it. The
Court had the power and the responsibility to ensure that he took no
drugs other than those prescribed for him. Even if it could be proven
that Milosevic took his own life, whether wilfully or accidentally,
the Court is still at fault. The difference between justice and
persecution is this: justice demands that the accused's rights be
protected even while he is charged and punished for his misdeeds.
Persecution assumes that the accused has no rights, not even the right
to live, or to speak for himself, or to pay a *fair* price for his
crimes, as determined by due process of law. Just read Carla Del
Ponte: she certainly does not know the difference.
In the case of the World Court, its jurisdiction is universal;
prisoners under its care, like prisoners of war, are cut off from
their native jurisdiction, and from all natural protection. A
Canadian criminal confined in a Canadian prison is still protected by
his own country's laws and constitution. The persons incarcerated at
The Hague are fundamentally stateless; some, like Milosevic, were
abducted without due process of law, or even a simulacrum of due
process (he was captured at night by common law criminals disguised as
law enforcement officials, and operating in tandem with an occupation
army on a constitutionally alien territory). In the case of a
stateless person, who has been removed forcibly from the legal
protection of his native country, the Court's protective obligations
towards the prisoner are that much greater.
Whatever shred of credibility the World Court had in the eyes of the
poorly informed public comes into question after these two unexplained
deaths in captivity. Of course, the lawless fashion in which the
Court condoned and even encouraged the violent abduction of indicted
persons alerted more astute observers several years ago that the World
Court operates arbitrarily, and follows no generally established
principles of justice.
If the Russian government know what's good for them, they will demand
inquests on *all* deaths in captivity at The Hague. Because there is
no such thing as *natural* death when a person has been stripped of
all freedoms, even his passport, and his rights as a citizen, and is
kept incarcerated by foreign powers, like a prisoner of war. Unless
they submit to international scrutiny for the care of their
international prisoners, the Tribunal at The Hague admit publicly that
they are a mere kangaroo court, operating illicitly and fraudulently
for the benefit of occult organisations, modern robber barons
plundering vulnerable countries of their natural resources.
I wish to remind all my correspondents of the words of Emperor Hadrian
of Rome, nearly two thousand years ago: better that a hundred
criminals should go free, than even one innocent person be sentenced
wrongfully. When I first read this pronouncement, I was a teen-ager,
and thought Hadrian must have been a sentimentalist sap. Then I grew
up, and became a historian; I learned that Hadrian could be fairly
described as a brutal realist.
After decades of involvement in public affairs, I have come to agree
with Hadrian: the death at the hands of the State of even one
innocent person causes infinitely greater damage to the judicial
process than the actions of a hundred criminals, because the power,
the *majesty* of the state, as the Romans called it, demands
unimpeachable standards of justice. Failure to convict is temporary;
a wrongful death is irreversible.
Wrongful death and criminal negligence are the charges hanging over
the World Court. No judicial body can afford to be guilty of such
charges, and still maintain credibility as a judicial body. Such an
institution cannot credibly accuse anyone of war crimes when it cannot
itself carry out its protective obligations towards the stateless
prisoners in its power.
In conclusion, seeing the efforts made by the Americans, including
their stooges in Canada like Steve Harper, to neutralize Iran before
they go Euro, I have come to believe that the bombing of Serbia had
nothing to do with Serbia; that it was done, 2(c)1/2 months after the
launch of the Euro for that main purpose: to destroy the Euro.
Serbia just has the misfortune of sitting on a geopolitical gold mine:
if one destroys Serbia's infrastructure, one paralyses all
communications between East and West. With this one cut to the
jugular, the all European currency bleeds to death.
Serbian News Network - SNN
[email protected]
http://www.antic.org/
