-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Michael Dobbs
Friday, February 17, 2012 - 2:12 PM
Share
Thanks to the online video feed from the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal, I have been watching Radovan Karadzic rebut charges that he ordered the murder of 7,000-plus Muslim prisoners following the fall of Srebrenica. It is a curtain-raiser to the arguments we can expect when the Ratko Mladic trial finally opens in The Hague on May 14. (The date has now been finalized.)
As you can see from the photographs above, Karadzic is a man with many sides-poet, psychiatrist, president, fugitive from justice, New Age healer. His latest role is that of defense attorney, representing himself, in a trial that has been going on for over two years. Superficially at least, he is playing the part with utmost seriousness. In contrast to Mladic, who has become known for his courtroom tantrums, Karadzic treats the judges with great respect, referring to them as "Excellencies," and is polite to prosecution witnesses, thanking them for their testimony.
But when you examine his defense strategy in more detail, you have to wonder about his goal. Again in contrast to Mladic, Karadzic has a plausible defense against the charge that he ordered the Srebrenica killings. He was not on the scene himself, and did not have direct operational control over the executioners, who answered to Mladic as the Bosnian Serb military commander. Furthermore, we know that relations between the two men were extremely strained in July 1995. Karadzic might have followed the example of Drina Corps commander Radislav Krstic in pinning primary responsibility for Srebrenica on Mladic.
Instead, he has chosen a different tack, which seems to have even less chance of succeeding than the "It wasn't me, Your Honor" strategy. He is attempting to deny basic facts about the case that have been established by the tribunal in a long series of trials, beginning with the Krstic case in 1998. While conceding that there were some "revenge killings" of Muslims by Serbs after Srebrenica, he insists that most of the deaths were "combat-related." In the Karadzic version of events, Muslim soldiers fleeing from Srebrenica died from a variety of causes -- suicide, ambushes, fighting among each other -- that had nothing to do with mass executions ordered from above.
Some of his claims are so preposterous that they would be laughed out of court in the United States. Take his response to a prosecution expert, William Haglund, who challenged his assertion that people buried in one grave could have been killed "on the battlefield" by pointing out that 63 per cent of the skulls recovered had blindfolds attached. Haglund noted drily that "people don't fight with their blindfolds on," but this was not enough for Karadzic, who argued that the blindfolds could have been "bandannas" that slipped down as the bodies decomposed.
Haglund pointed out that the blindfolds were tied “very tight…They didn’t slip. They weren’t hats or bindings on a head. They didn’t go up or didn’t go down. They stayed on the eyes. They were tied very tight.”
Decide for yourselves. Here is a skull recovered from the mass grave at Kozluk. Blindfold or warrior ribbon?
So if Karadzic is not trying to convince the court with his arguments, who is he attempting to convince? The answer to that seems clear: public opinion back home in Serbia and "Republika Srpska." Karadzic served as president of the self-proclaimed Bosnian Serb statelet from 1992 to 1995, and still views himself as a man who will go down in Serbian history for "defending the rights of the Serbs." If he acknowledged that the crimes of which he has been accused actually took place, he would destroy his own place in history.
While his fortunes have changed greatly, Karadzic the man seems little changed from the nationalist firebrand I met in Sarajevo back in September 1991, on the eve of the Bosnia war. On that occasion, he treated me to a tirade about Muslims attempting to "create an Islamic state" in Bosnia, and produced a map that purported to show that two thirds of Bosnia was rightfully Serb. His map was remarkably similar to what the multi-ethnic country did look like by the fall of 1992, after hundreds of thousands of Muslims had been chased from their homes through "ethnic cleansing."
It has been a relief to see that not all Bosnian Serbs, even those who took part in the Srebrenica massacre, think like their former leader. Earlier this week, he was confronted by a prosecution witness, Momir Nikolic, who publicly apologized for his role in the July 1995 killings. At the end of his cross-examination, Karadzic asked Nikolic if he wished he could have done anything differently.
"I would have run away as fast as I could," replied Nikolic, who is serving a 20- year sentence for crimes against humanity. "I made mistakes and I took it like a man....That is what I have done, and I haven't regretted [cooperating with the tribunal], believe me. I feel all the better for confessing to my part in the crime. I have accepted my responsibility and I said I was sorry. Now I can rest easier because I've done it."
We are unlikely to hear that kind of speech from Radovan Karadzic -- or Ratko Mladic.
Mr. Dobbs,
You write, "While conceding that there were some 'revenge killings' of Muslims by Serbs after Srebrenica, he insists that most of the deaths were 'combat-related.' In the Karadzic version of events, Muslim soldiers fleeing from Srebrenica died from a variety of causes -- suicide, ambushes, fighting among each other -- that had nothing to do with mass executions ordered from above. "
Don't you think that's kind of a tendentious way of putting things? How is it only the "Karadzic version of events" when there's a mountain of eyewitness testimony from surviving members of the column that scores of people were killed in ambushes, by land mines, and that some people did commit suicide?
I'm not going to take a position as to whether "most" of the deaths were combat related or not -- but there certainly was a substantial number of people who were killed in ways other than being executed.
And why is it that you put "revenge killings" in quotation marks, but in your other articles you don't put the word "genocide" in quotation marks? Please explain that to me because I'd like to know.
Well, we obviously disagree on this. First of all, most people in the column were not soldiers in the sense that they were armed (probably about a third were armed, in the front of the column). Second, there is a big difference between the version of events accepted by the tribunal -- that there were 600-1000 deaths in the column, buried in "shallow graves"--and the "Karadzic version" which is that most of the people buried in the mass graves were "combat-related" casualties. even you do not seem to go that fire. I agree with the Tribunal on this one. (There are some matters where I disagree with the prosecutors, such as placing Mladic at the scene of execution sites on July 14, for which I do not think there is sufficient evidence.)
I put revenge killings in quotation marks, because that is how he describes them.....
Number of Soldiers In The Column
I think you're underestimating the number of armed soldiers in the column and their disposition within it. According to an internal investigation conducted by the ABiH and the Bosnian interior ministry there were 6,000 armed soldiers in the column and these included soldiers at the front and the rear of the column.
Here is what their report says, "Numbers were not established when the column was formed and set off that evening, but some estimates put the number in the column at 10,000 to 15,000 people, including approxamately 6,000 armed soldiers, not counting soldiers from Zepa ... when the column was moving the commanders received instructions, which reportedly included instructions to leave any dead soldiers ... the formation put the 284th Brigade at the head of the column because it had the most knowledge of the terrain, and it was followed by the 280th Brigade with the acting commander within it, while the Mountain brigade brought up the rear of the column." (The report is exhibit Exhibit 1D00839.E in the Popovic trial if you want to look it up)
On the other question, you say "I put revenge killings in quotation marks, because that is how he describes them....." but when I asked you about your use of the word "genocide" in your "tracking genocide one body at a time" article, and you told me: "I have used the word because the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal ruled that Srebrenica was a genocide" and then you quoted the genocide convention and said "It is up to you to decide whether that fits Srebrenica or not ... I respect the right of others to debate this question and disagree with the court's interpretation of the convention"
So now I'm back to the question. Why quote marks for "revenge killings" but not for "genocide"? They're both descriptions put forward by others, and they're both debateable, so why quotation marks for one and not for the other?
"So now I'm back to the question. Why quote marks for "revenge killings" but not for "genocide"? They're both descriptions put forward by others, and they're both debateable, so why quotation marks for one and not for the other?"
Genocide is the official charge of the tribunal. It doesn't have to be in quotes. Its not debatable as much as it is what the tribunal is set out to prove. Revenge killings is a currently unsubstantiated view of events. One which as pointed out, goes against facts already established in prior tribunals.
In fact a defense based on such an assertion may be dismissed by the tribunal entirely if the prosecutors can successfully move to take judicial notice of the admitted evidence from the prior tribunals.
Alleged genocide is probably more appropriate, since the trial is still ongoing, but the term is the most honest representation of what is being tried before the court.
agree with most of what Spood said. In Karadzic and Mladic's cases, the genocide is still alleged, as neither man has been convicted. However. the court has ruled in other cases, e.g. Krstic, that genocide was committed. We are talking about the same events here. You can disagree with their verdict, but that is how they ruled.
Yes, it's how the Tribunal ruled, and it would be one thing if you consistently used language like "the Srebrenica massacre, ruled to be 'genocide' by the ICTY" but you don't. The way I've seen you use the word, you speak as if you're adopting the position yourself, but then you won't defend it. You just appeal to the authority of the ICTY so that you don't have to take responsibility for baking up the accusation with the appropriate evidence.
If you're going to adopt the position that genocide was committed, then I think you ought to be prepared to back-up that position with evidence of genocidal intent, and if you're not adopting the position, if the only thing you're doing is referencing the ICTY verdict, then I think you should be more clear about that.
The verdict isn't evidence of anything on its own. What the verdict is is an interpretation of the evidence, and we're all free to adopt that interpretation or not. But if we do or if we don't, we still ought to be prepared to explain our reasoning. Wouldn't you agree?
The Tribunal has the last word on the subject
Your argument ignores that fact that genocide is the charge given. It doesn't have to be qualified in any way nor subject to explanation. Its like arguing that OJ Simpson was not on trial for homicide. It is a given since it was part of the criminal indictment.
Plus since we have prior trials already establishing the events are considered genocide under the legal definition of the term, it is no longer a point of debate. It may be accepted as a form of judicial notice.
An appeal to authority is valid here because the tribunal is the authority in the best position to display the evidence and arguments presented and make informed evaluations of it. Your attempt to avoid it and play armchair defense lawyer can't be taken as seriously compared to what both sides of the tribunal have put forward.
"The verdict isn't evidence of anything on its own."
The verdict and what is usually a fairly long judgment, is evidence that the claim were brought forward, sufficient evidence was evaluated, subject to attack by the adversary, and ultimately decided in an objective fashion . It carries obvious weight since the accused will either be incarcerated or set free.
It is the only evidence one can really trust here. You can't attack the tribunal unless you can point to some inherent procedural defect as to how it runs. Frankly I don't take your point seriously because if Mladic is acquitted, you would definitely hold it out as evidence in his favor.
You just don't like the fact that you can't offer revisionary takes on the evidence when you have the real thing being presented and evaluated by people who are in a position to do so.
Appealing to authority on a controversial matter is still fallacious. For example, one can appeal to the authority of theologians as evidence that God exists -- but it doesn't mean they're correct in their belief.
Somebody can say: "I believe God exists"
Another person responds: "Prove it."
They respond with, "The Pope says he does, and the Pope knows more about God and religious matters than you do."
Courts are not infallible, nor do they claim to be (unlike the Pope). They can be wrong, and they have been wrong on numerous occasions. People get wrongfully convicted all the time. There are thousands of innocent people behind bars in the United States right now, we've even executed a number of people who were later proven to be innocent. Prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct, false testimony, evidence suppression, and evidence fabrication are unfortunately all things that happen. The judges can be biased and misinterpret the evidence too.
It is ridiculous to suggest that because a court has made its ruling that the point is no longer up for discussion. Of course it is.
If you adopt a position because that's the position adopted by the court, and somebody argues that the court adopted the wrong position and they present evidence to substantiate their argument, it is a logical fallacy for you to appeal to the authority of the court as the basis for your position. It is circular reasoning.
I say "the court is wrong because ..." and you respond, "You're wrong because the court made a ruling that contradicts what you're saying." It's absurd.
Muslim soldiers used to wear cloth ribbons
As a matter of fact, Muslim soldiers used to wear cloth ribbons wrapped around their heads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43sQTyNl83g&feature=youtu.be
At the beginning of this video we can also see Muslim soldiers wearing ribbons attached to their left arm close to the shoulder
[...but this was not enough for Karadzic, who argued that the blindfolds could have been "bandannas" that slipped down as the bodies decomposed.
Haglund pointed out that the blindfolds were tied “very tight…They didn’t slip. They weren’t hats or bindings on a head. They didn’t go up or didn’t go down. They stayed on the eyes. They were tied very tight.”... ]
Mr Dobbs, It seems you are always trying to suggest that Karadzic is talking nonsense, he is ridiculous, whatever he says causes just laughter and contempt of the "civilized world". In one word, he is a kind of harlequin-thug, a funny mass murderer, a killer with "many faces".
I think, when Mr Karadzic said that the cloth strips found in mass graves "were not blindfolds but warrior's ribbons", there was nothing for to be laughed at.
Let us compare the opinions of two experts, Peccerelli and Haglund:
- Guatemalan anthropologist Fredi Peccerelli, said that blindfolds were found on many of the victims exhumed from the mass graves in Lazete 1 and 2. In some cases, the blindfolds slipped to the victims’ foreheads or mouths as the bodies were moved and as tissue decomposed.
On the other hand, Haglund suggested that the blindfolds 'were tied very tight':"They didn’t slip. They weren’t hats or bindings on a head. They didn’t go up or didn’t go down. They stayed on the eyes. They were tied very tight.”
Who has the right here?
Is it not normal that cloth strips loosen when the soft tissues decompose?
@ GOSTELJSKI - Yes some Muslim soldiers, especially among the mujahadeen units, did wear bandanas as part of their uniform, but the soldiers who broke out of Srebrenica weren't wearing uniforms, and to my knowledge they weren't any mujahadeen among them. Those soldiers were dressed in civilian clothes, so they wouldn't have been wearing bandanas.
Besides, in addition to blindfolds they've also found ligatures in the graves. I think Manning's teams found a total of 448 blindfolds and 423 ligatures and they found them in the same graves. In the Kozluk grave that Dobbs is making reference to in his article, they found 55 blindfolds and 168 ligatures. Those victims weren't just blindfolded, they were tied up too. They found people buried with their hands still tied behind their backs. Those people were clearly murdered and we have to be honest about that and call a spade a spade.
It doesn't help the Serbian cause to pick this fight. There are plenty of holes and weaknesses in the official Srebrenica story, but this isn't one of them.
@ ANDYWILCOXSON - I have no intention to help anyone's cause. I am interested in finding the truth.
The video I pointed to shows a bunch of Bosnian Muslim soldiers (of Slavic origin) and an Arab mercenary. All of them are wearing ribbons around their heads.
Look at this video too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-nhN-3LPPk&feature=youtu.be
I took a look at your videos, which reflect an obvious truth: both sides committed brutal crimes. a couple of comments on the ribbons. first, the ribbons seem to have been used primarily (by both sides) as means of identifying units, worn on the shoulder. some fighters, particularly foreign fighters, tied these ribbons around their head rather than the shoulder. when you decide whether the ribbons in the graves are blindfolds or id ribbons, you have to consider all the evidence together. probably some blindfolds did slip down as the bodies decomposed. think it is very hard to claim that the blindfold i showed on the skull is an id ribbon. and as Andy points out, many of the blindfold also had their hands tied behind their back. you certainly don't fight battles with hands tied behind your back.
to tell the story of what happened to people in, say, the kozluk or lazete graves, you cannot look simply at one piece of evidence, e.g. a blindfold and argue that it could have been a war ribbon. you have to look at all the evidence in total, including eyewitness testimony, examination of how the bodies are dumped, archeological evidence, dna evidence, soil samples, intercepts and documents about prisoners, records of military units that took part, etc. etc. when you do all that, the evidence is pretty clear, although someone can always quarrel with parts of it.
The reason why you see Slavic-Muslims wearing these bandanas is because they were trained by foreign mujaheddin.
Alija Izetbegovic and Hasan Cengic were both Islamic fundamentalists since way back before the war, and they brought in foreign mujaheddin and trainers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and from various terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc... The Iranian government provided Izetbegovic with two thirds of his military hardware.
The foreign mujaheddin came and they incorporated religious indoctrination into the ABiH's military training, and so that's why you see Slavic-Muslims dressed-up like foreign mujaheddin -- but I don't think there was a whole lot of mujaheddin activity in Srebrenica itself.
Further, the soldiers who fled from Srebrenica wouldn't have worn those headbands because they were dressed like civilians. They certainly would not have wanted to identify themselves to the Serbs as being soldiers, and especially not as soldiers tied in with the mujaheddin.
Mr Dobbs,
Thank you for your reply.
Of course, you are right that warring sides used the ribbons as a sign of identification attached to their shoulders. I already pointed at one of the Muslim soldiers who was wearing a strip of the green cloth on his shoulder (at the beginning of the clip, inside the Orthodox church), beside those who had wrapped their heads with ribbons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43sQTyNl83g&feature=youtu.be
I claim nothing, because now we can't know for sure whether the Muslim soldiers from Srebrenica used that identification marks in July 1995 or not. But I was a little bit surprised seeing that Naser Oric's soldiers used the war ribbons that were not green (Islamic color). Expert Peccerelli said that in many cases, "the blindfolds were made of the _same pink fabric_", which, in his view, ‘isn’t appropriate’ for use in combat. Namely, the ribbons seen on the second video, which I posted yesterday, might just be pink colored.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-nhN-3LPPk&feature=youtu.be
Brits and Irish say "pink" in reference to a shade that Americans would call "orange", e.g. the roof tiles of Dubrovnik's Old City.
And, it seems, there is a serious problem with Haglund's credibility. Not only for Rutaganda case and the rejection of his expert opinion by the Trial Chamber, but also because he was the ICTY expert from the mere foundation of this (as it looks according to the number of tried Serbs) undisguisedly anti-Serbian institution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Qh8UYz0N4
Mr. Dobbs,
If you're aware that "some fighters, particularly foreign fighters, tied these ribbons around their head" then why would you say that Karadzic asking the question is "so preposterous" that it should be "laughed out of court"?
I'm not saying that these aren't blindfolds, I'm pretty sure most of them are blindfolds, but surely you can understand why he would ask the question.
You should be more concerned with the fact that Haglund didn't answer the question honestly. Haglund isn't telling the truth when he says the blindfolds were tied “very tight…They didn’t slip. They weren’t hats or bindings on a head. They didn’t go up or didn’t go down. They stayed on the eyes. They were tied very tight.”
In Lazete 2C, which was one of the graves examined by Haglund, only eight of the blindfolds were located on the head or face of the victim and 32 others were found loose in the grave. Manning breaks it all down in his report (Popovic exhibit P00648).
Obviously, if most of the blindfolds were found "loose" in one of the graves examined by Haglund, then he wasn't telling the truth when he said they were all tied so tight that they couldn't slip.
In fact, according to Manning, 117 out of the total number of 448 blindfolds found in all the graves were found loose.
So when did the defense team hire you on?
Again, there is no reason to take your view of the testimony or evidence any more seriously than the tribunal already has.
You haven't even referenced it in a way we could verify you are giving to us accurate (no links so we could see it for ourselves?)
If holes in the testimony are so obvious, then the defense team would pick up on it in cross-examination.
That is if the argument against it has a reasonable basis and is not frivolous on its face. One thing to note, if an argument put forth by either side is completely without merit or frivolous on its face, the attorneys face sanction by the court. Chances are if it isn't being argued by one side or the other, it can't be reasonably supported.
Again let me emphasize the skills and experience of the legal team working for the defense here. These people are the international law equivalents of Johnny Cochrane, not My Cousin Vinny. The idea that you have the information and skills necessary to criticize the evidence presented in a credible manner is laughable.
@ Spood - You can't post links to documents in the ICTY database because you need a login and password in order to get into the Tribunal's database. But if you want to see the document I'm referencing for yourself, then you can go to icr.icty.org and do a search for exhibit number P00648 under the Popovic, Vujadin trial and the document will come right up. If you don't have a login and password, you can register with the ICTY and they'll give you one for free.
After you've looked at the document and seen that I'm right about the numbers of blindfolds found loose in the graves, then come back and explain to us how Haglund wasn't lying when he said all of the blindfolds were tied so tight that they couldn't have moved. When obviously a lot of the blindfolds did move, and moved so much that they slipped right off the victim's head.
If I'm so stupid and ill-equipped that I can't evaluate and criticize this evidence, then explain how I'm wrong. That should be easy for a smart guy like you.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim
I am not the one trying to dispute what amounts to the official take on the events, you are. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to substantiate that your claims has to be taken more seriously than the tribunal's decisions.
I have the luxury of having claims already subjected to attack and decided on their merits. You do not. You can hem and haw all you like, but the tribunal's findings are the most reliable source here. If they happen to run counter to your POV, tough luck.
Its not my job to disprove what you say because I have no assurance you were presenting the facts accurately to begin with.
"If I'm so stupid and ill-equipped that I can't evaluate and criticize this evidence, then explain how I'm wrong. That should be easy for a smart guy like you."
-So when did you get admitted to the bar?
-What puts you in a better position than Mladic's own defense team to evaluate incriminating evidence presented before him?
-Why do you think Mladic's defense did not dispute the claim concerning Haglund?
If it were so obvious, then it would have been fodder for a defense expert witness peer review to take apart. This was not unexpected testimony.
There is no such thing as a surprise expert witness. His defense team had months to pour over the reports being used as expert testimony and come up with the obvious flaws and their own experts who could dispute the findings.
---
I can already cite to your lack of knowledge concerning judicial notice as evidence you are not equipped to evaluate the legal arguments being used. I can also cite to a general lack of understanding how a court relies on expert testimony.
In other words, you can't prove me wrong.
@ Spood - You've done nothing but make ad hominem remarks, and you haven't even attempted to answer the question or refute what I'm saying. How can Haglund be telling the truth when he says the blindfolds were all tied so tight that they couldn't move, when you have Manning's report saying that so many blindfolds were found loose in the graves -- including grave examined by Haglund?
The way to be sure that I'm not misrepresenting the evidence is to read Manning's report for yourself, which as I'm telling you for the third time now is exhibit P00648 in the Popovic trial. You can look it up if you don't believe me.
And for the record, Haglund testified in the Karadzic trial, not the Mladic trial. The Mladic trial hasn't even started yet. You seem to be a little bit confused about that.
"no such thing as a surprise expert witness"
M(r(s)) "Spood: "there is no such thing as a surprise expert witness". Counter-examples to Spood's magisterial pronouncement abound in the law literature. E.g. "Aviation Law and tagged Lidle, Surprise, trial, witness." http://law.hukuki.net/surprise-witness-at-lidle-trial.htm. -- PM Macmillan "who ever heard of the VanAllen rdiation belt"? (1962).
Opposing lawyers work hard to discredit or delay the testimony of a surprise expert witness, esp when they haven't had the time or wit to come up with a counter-expert of their own. You aint no lawyer, Spoodie...
"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Toll-Jag Spood: if the glove shrank, it couldn't fit.
The Prize is his for the taking!
Michael Dobbs is trying to get propaganda mileage out of Radovan Karadzic’s ten year effort to avoid facing the Hague kangaroo court. In typical Dobbsian style, he entitles his latest tirade “The Many Faces of Radovan Karadzic”, implying that concealing one’s whereabouts and disguising one’s face to avoid falling into a judicial black hole is prima facie evidence of a guilty conscience.
The unwillingness shown by Karadzic, Mladic, Gotovina, and many others, to volunteer to be victims of ICTY “justice” implies nothing of the sort, but quite the opposite. It is the normal reaction that would be exhibited by most people in their predicament, including probably Dobbs himself if ICTY were ever to indict him. Only fools could be expected to act differently. No one has a moral obligation to report voluntarily for judicial martyrdom before a political tribunal. Contrary to Dobbs’ malevolent insinuations, it is honorable to do one’s utmost to avoid the infliction of injustice.
So once again, Dobbs’ pretentious prattle turns out to be pure poppycock.
Dobbs’ speculations about Karadzic’s defense strategy are silly: “But when you examine his defense strategy in more detail, you have to wonder about his goal. Again in contrast to Mladic, Karadzic has a plausible defense against the charge that he ordered the Srebrenica killings. He was not on the scene himself, and did not have direct operational control over the executioners, who answered to Mladic as the Bosnian Serb military commander. Furthermore, we know that relations between the two men were extremely strained in July 1995. Karadzic might have followed the example of Drina Corps commander Radislav Krstic in pinning primary responsibility for Srebrenica on Mladic.”
One can only hope that Karadzic is not an idiot to follow the legal advice Dobbs kindly offers to become a prosecution witness against Mladic. The fact that Dobbs could come up with such a preposterous idea shows how little he understands the mentality and the dynamics of a world that is totally foreign to him, which of course does not keep him from relentlessly imparting “analytical wisdom” about it. Pulitzer Prize material, indeed!
"Dobbs kindly offers to become a prosecution witness against Mladic." Good trick. --What did he witness? Where was he in July 1995?
The witness who wasn't there..
Dobbs woudldn' be the only one at the ICTY. Moreover, two witnesses for the prosecution who were "there", are two officers of the Bosnian Muslim Army who testifed against Karadzic re the first massacre at Sarajevo's Markale (Markt Halle) on 4 FEB 1994. They were were munitions experts who themselves laid and detonated the IED under a table at the market. IEDs are known to all as the favored ordnance of Muslim bombers where they have unimpeded access to the kill spot. The device was no "Serb mortar" as "defined" by the court and its paertner in the conspiracy -- Yep!. The heart of the device was a "Bouncing Betty", a bounding mine known in Yugoslavia as the PROM 2 (Protivpesadijska rasprskavajuca odskocna mina). This type was not in the stores of the Yugoslav Army or Bosnian Serb Army, but was weapon manufactured only at Muslim-held Bugojno. In another act of perfidy, the same ordnance was used tro murder Croatian policemen. ICTY terms the bomb makers "witnesses".
Dogs, yelping wildly, race our car into the sleeping town of Visegrad, where we see in the beam of our headlights the face of Karadzic. Blown up poster-size, it is pasted on every shopwindow. His silver hair, usually an unruly bouffant, has been combed; the cleft in his chin looks the size of a bullet hole. In red, under each of these color portraits, are the words DON’T TOUCH HIM! Karadzic is hiding out somewhere in this country, protected by his most trusted soldiers, surrounded by mines and antiaircraft weapons. Bosko says that Karadzic has ten different hideouts. Eight thousand American soldiers are currently in Bosnia, the largest continent in a NATO force of thirty-one thousand. Even though Washington denies it, Tim believes that an American snatch team has been training secretly since the spring to bring him in. Karadzic has instructed his guards to shoot him rather than allow him to be captured.
Visegard, a garrison of hard-line Serbs, was one of the first towns to be cleansed of its Muslims. Fourteen thousand just vanished, deported or executed in the summer of 1992. A laboratory of killing, Bosko calls it. My homework, he calls it. He doesn’t say what he means by that, but he knows this town. Visegrad is where he went to school as a boy.
Our driver turns down an alley and stops at a bar called Cafe 10. A half dozen men, mostly former soldiers and paramilitary men, step out of the darkness. Each one greets Bosko with an embrace and a kiss.
It’s 4:00 A.M., but they have kept the lights burning for us. Inside, we crowd into a corner booth. Our driver pulls out his wallet. I see the flicker of his secret-police badge. No one uses names, and it is understood that we are not to ask. The bartender opens a bottle of slivovitz, the local homemade plum brandy. Tim, who is not much of a drinker, figures it’s 400 proof. Even Bosko must hammer his chest with every swallow.
After three shots, Bosko throws a heavy arm around me. “You’ll put in a good word for me with our friends in Virginia when you return,” he says.
“You know, Bosko,” I answer carefully, “the CIA no longer recruits journalists or priests.”
Still, he slides the bottle of slivovitz over me to consecrate the moment. “You are the voice of America,” he says, pulling me closer. “You can help the Doctor. My angel is getting bad advice. It’s my advice he needs. I know the double game. America is after him, but these fuckers here are ready to kill Americans if they try it. We need to convince America that Radovan Karadzic is the only hope for stability in this whole fucking godforsaken country. We need to show the whole world the good man he is.”
Bosko raises his glass. “Somebody put dirt on the Doctor,” he says. “We’ve got to make the Doctor clean. You put in a good word for me and make me clean, too.”
It’s almost dawn, and Bosko Radonjich, John Gotti’s fixer, wants to mediate this grave international crisis. He wants to save Karadzic. He wants to save American lives. But most of all, he wants to save himself. He wants to go home to New York, where he lived in a $5 million townhouse on the East Side and drove a Rolls-Royce Corniche. He misses his “work” for the CIA, and he surely doesn’t want to be here if the war breaks out again.
The Serbs at the table seem not to comprehend Bosko’s agenda. They are soldiers in a lost war, unready to concede defeat, willing to kill again, expecting to kill again. They sit now with their arms draped easily over one another’s shoulders, their young faces spent and teeth broken.
“If they try to snatch Karadzic, that is war,” says a young Serb quietly, not a hint of bravado in his voice. “We will kill every soldier we see. We will pile American bodies to the sky. We’ll start with you if we have to.”
At daybreak, having killed only two bottles of slivovitz, we leave the bar. Mist is rising off the Drina River, which runs through the heart of Visegrad. A massive stone bridge, built in 1510 by Turks during the days of the Ottoman Empire, spans the river’s jade water. At one end of the bridge is Bosko’s old school.
“Don’t let the beauty fool you,” Bosko says as we drive over the bridge. So many Muslims—he calls them Turks—were executed on this stone bridge during the war that the Drina turned red. And I now see in the hills beyond the bridge what had been hidden from view in the night.
“Them is all the houses of Turks,” Bosko says sleepily. Each charred house is a tombstone. We pass hundreds in the hills above the Drina.
Tim, seated again beside me in the backseat, checks for the tail car, but the faceless war criminal is no longer behind us. Bosko snores in the front seat as our driver races at drunken speeds toward our rendezvous with Karadzic.
In the mountain village of Pale, the seat of Karadzic’s power, the Minister of Fear plants three kisses on Bosko, Serbian style, one on each cheek and then back to the first. As head of the Republic of Srpska secret police, Dragan Kijac is one of the most feared men in the country.
Bosko introduces Tim and then me. “This is Daniel. He was with me and the Irish in New York,” he says, lying.
“So you want to see Dr. Karadzic? If only you had come a few days earlier,” the minister says, stiffing us fast. “ Now even I cannot know where he is.”
The minister, who looks a bit like Bobby Kennedy, is saying something else to me in Serbo-Croatian.
“He wants to know,” Bosko translates, “how big is the circulation of your magazine?” His final words to me before this meeting had been “Lie, lie, lie—everything is a double game.”
“Seven million,” I answer.
The Minister of Fear, who I suspect speaks perfect English, raises his eyebrows, impressed. But then I falter. “Well, uh, actually, it’s a couple million, if you count, like, people who, you know, pick it up in bus . . .”
I don’t dare look up. I can feel Bosko’s glare, his disappointment. “And he’ll appear on TV,” he says confidently, stepping in. “CNN, CBS, all the networks. He’s the greatest writer about postwar countries. He is the voice of America.”
The Minister of Fear shakes his head. A period of awkward silence follows. Tim, who has been sitting quietly nearby, playing the role of my bodyguard, reaches for his business card. In America, Tim is a partner in Spartan Security out of Mamers, North Carolina. Recently, his firm, made up of a couple of other ex-Special Forces buddies, bought a $45,000 copier and added “International” to its name. Now Tim is after high-stakes contracts. The first proposal Spartan printed on the new copier is entitled “Current Training Programs Available to Serb People.”
“Right now, America is arming your enemies,” he tells the Minister of Fear. “Hell, former associates of mine are training the Muslims and Croats with $100 million from the United States. When the American troops leave here next summer, you’re going to be slaughtered. It’ll be Serb season.” For Tim, it’s an avalanche of words. It’s his Hail Mary pass, a way to save me and sign up a client. Tim’s prospectus offers “cutting-edge hostage-rescue and surgical-strike operations” and proposes training for “worst-case scenarios.”
With forty thousand police on his payroll, the largest armed force in the Republic of Srpska, the minister perks up.
“I live one step away from treason,” Tim winks.
The Minister of Fear directs us to a ruin of a hotel at the top of the mountain, Hotel Paranoia, where we are to await further instructions.
At twilight, we settle into a room. Tim opens a window. Outside, NATO helicopters are flying patterns over Pale. And higher up, Tim figures, there are at least four satellites watching this area.
Bosko hunches down in front of me. I’ve been kicking myself since we left the Minister of Fear. “So you fuck up,” he says. “Forget about it.”
The phone rings and Bosko answers, switching between Serbo-Croatian and English. “That was Karadzic,” Bosko says, hanging up. Former U.S. assistant secretary of state Richard Holbrooke is touring Bosnia, trying to salvage his Dayton Peace Accord, and he is making Karadzic’s life hell. Our meeting has been postponed. “But he’s got a package for you,” Bosko says. “Something he wants you to advise him on. He’ll call you next week at the casino.”
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/radovan-karadzic-1297-2#ixzz1pJW0y3l2
thanks
cleaning services sydney
Ratko Mladic has been described as "one of those lethal combinations that history thrusts up occasionally-a charismatic murderer." What drove the Bosnian Serb military commander to order Europe's deadliest massacre since World War II? Could it have been prevented? Michael Dobbs, a U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum fellow, investigates.
Read More
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(29)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE