Tuesday, April 14, 2009
It was as previously reported.. Points I noted:
- The BBC started by claiming the Serbs had "killed thousands of Albanians" a statement they did not attempt to prove & which contradicts NATO's Spanish forensic who said 2,000 from all communities & killed not only by all parties but some who might have died from causes not connected with the war. On the other hand this is relatively balanced for the BBC since they previously claimed anything up to 250,000 & is presumably what Michael Montgomery is requited to say.
- It refers to groups of captives being held in houses at a KLA base but them being moved to "shacks" in what amounts to the back gardens when KFOR troops were expected. As told that seemed to mean that they were being hidden from KFOR but the KLA would have known that NATO troops visiting the house could not have failed to hear groups of "20-25" screaming for their lives.
This alone strongly suggests NATO deliberately authorised the genocide. Since the location was shown & the rough dates were too it should be possible to trace the troops if that were desired.
- One witness referred to "truckloads" & "hundreds" of "Serbs Gypsies & Albanians" captives at 1 site.
General Agim Ceku was interviewed. He claimed his "own father" was killed by Serbs. This may or may not be true though it is not mentioned in his biography.He would not be the first KLA member to claim to be motivated by the murder of a family member who was not dead.
- It was stated that a KLA witness had claimed to have heard that "kidneys were going to Turkey" but no mention of other NATO countries.
- That 6 years ago the UN & ICTY Had "detailed" documents on the murder site, in Albania, which were taken to Kosovo & thence to the ICTY in the Hague where it had been decided that some or all of it should be destroyed. There was some discussion of whether this interfered with the "chain of evidence" & whether those who destroyed it would be recorded as part of the chain of evidence.
- The ICTY had "declined to confirm or deny" destroying evidence because of the "ongoing investigation".
- That the evidence known as of 2003 to the ICTY, UN, NATO & presumably NATO member states certainly "warranted opening an investigation".
No mention of the Dragodan & other immediate massacres. No mention of the sexual enslavement of schoolgirls. No mention of the ethnic cleansing of 350,000. A general downplaying of numbers. All in all the closest to honest & balanced the genocidal Nazis at the BBC have come for 19 years.
Video of the journey
This legal technicality indicates the Hague must dismiss charges against Dr karadzic and others awaiting trials in the Hague jail; like it or not.
Unfortunately for the The Signatures Of the Rome Statute United Nations member states instituting the ICC housed at the Hague, in Karadzic and other Hague case, there is no other international court capable; even if there was, the same
United Nations member states that spoke about trading judicial appointments and verdicts for funding when I attended the 2001 ICC Preparatory Meetings at the UN in Manhattan would be morally incapable of constructing another court to hear cases.
I testify to, is an institution at its very conception stages was based upon trading bribery for judicial appointments and verdicts (?)
I witnessed with my own eyes and ears when attending the 2001 Preparatory Meetings to establish an newly emergent
International Criminal Court, the exact caliber of criminal corruption running so very deeply at the Hague, that it was a perfectly viable topic of legitimate conversation in those meetings I attended to debate trading verdicts AND judicial
appointments, for monetary funding.
Jilly wrote:*The rep from Spain became distraught and when her country’s proposal was not taken to well by the chair of the meeting , then Spain argued in a particularly loud and noticably strongly vocal manner, “Spain (my country) strongly
believes if we contribute most financial support to the Hague’s highest court, that ought to give us and other countries feeding it financially MORE direct power over its decisions.”
((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((((( Instead of censoring the country representative from Spain for even bringing up this unjust, illegal and unfair judicial idea of bribery for international judicial verdicts and judicial appointments, all country representatives present in the meeting that day all treated the Spain proposition as a ”totally legitimate topic” discussed and debated it between each other for some time. I was quite shocked! The idea was "let's discuss it." "It's a great topic
Some countries agreed with Spain’s propositions while others did not. The point here is, bribery for judicial verdicts and judicial appointments was treated as a totally legitimate topic instead of an illegitimate toic which it is in the meeting that I
attended in 2001 that day to establish the ground work for a newly emergent international criminal
In particular., since "Spain" was so overtly unafraid in bringing up this topic of trading financial funding the ICC for influence over its future judicial appointments and verdicts in front of every other UN member state present that day at the UN, "Spain" must have already known by previous experience the topic of bribery was "socially acceptable" for conversation that day. They must have previously spoke about bribing the ICTY and ICC before in meetings; this is my
take an international sociological honor student.
Could anyone imagine the US Supreme Court having such a discussion about trading money for judicial verdicts and judicial appointments among the judges appointed and those funding it as an institution, and then say claim it was capable
of giving anyone or anything a "fair trial" as the ICTY and ICC claim?
The idea is utterly ridiculous and disgusting morally!
SPAIN HAS TAUGHT THE WORLD THE TRUE DEFINITION OF AN "INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT."
I think there is a place for AN international criminal court though with right to extend its list of "crimes" beyond those charged at Nuremburg. However this one is not it & it should contain no representative of any country which does not punish its own citizens guilty of such crimes (ie no NATO members but Greece & Hungary).
I believe the ICC does allow countries to fund their own prosecutions. I think Spain & other NATO countries may regret the rent-a-judge system since China will soon be the richest country in the world & is already the most solvent.