Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

by Jerome a Paris
Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 09:20:15 AM EST

Starting early today...


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
First, this: "Be Nice to the Countries That Lend You Money"


People, especially Americans, started believing that they can live on other people's money. And more and more so. First other people's money in your own country. And then the savings rate comes down, and you start living on other people's money from outside. At first it was the Japanese. Now the Chinese and the Middle Easterners.

We--the Chinese, the Middle Easterners, the Japanese--we can see this too. Okay, we'd love to support you guys--if it's sustainable. But if it's not, why should we be doing this? After we are gone, you cannot just go to the moon to get more money. So, forget it. Let's change the way of living. [By which he meant: less debt, lower rewards for financial wizardry, more attention to the "real economy," etc.]

(...)

So I wondered, How do I explain derivatives?, and I used the model of mirrors.

First of all, you have this book to sell. [He picks up a leather-bound book.] This is worth something, because of all the labor and so on you put in it. But then someone says, "I don't have to sell the book itself! I have a mirror, and I can sell the mirror image of the book!" Okay. That's a stock certificate. And then someone else says, "I have another mirror--I can sell a mirror image of that mirror." Derivatives. That's fine too, for a while. Then you have 10,000 mirrors, and the image is almost perfect. People start to believe that these mirrors are almost the real thing. But at some point, the image is interrupted. And all the rest will go.

When I told the State Council about the mirrors, they all started laughing. "How can you sell a mirror image! Won't there be distortion?" But this is what happened with the American economy, and it will be a long and painful process to come down.

(...)

Many of the brightest youngsters come to me and say, "Okay, I want to go to the U.S. and get into business school, or law school." I say, "Why? Why not science and engineering?" They say, "Look at some of my primary-school classmates. Their IQ is half of mine, but they're in finance and now they're making all this money." So you have all these clever people going into financial engineering, where they come up with all these complicated products to sell to people.

But please read this one in full: The End of the Financial World as We Know It (continued as How to Repair a Broken Financial World): it's written gy Michael Lewis (of Liar Poker's fame), who has an amazing capacity to write clearly on the topic of finance and is, once again, spot on:


OUR financial catastrophe, like Bernard Madoff's pyramid scheme, required all sorts of important, plugged-in people to sacrifice our collective long-term interests for short-term gain. The pressure to do this in today's financial markets is immense. Obviously the greater the market pressure to excel in the short term, the greater the need for pressure from outside the market to consider the longer term. But that's the problem: there is no longer any serious pressure from outside the market. The tyranny of the short term has extended itself with frightening ease into the entities that were meant to, one way or another, discipline Wall Street, and force it to consider its enlightened self-interest.

(...)

SAY what you will about our government's approach to the financial crisis, you cannot accuse it of wasting its energy being consistent or trying to win over the masses. In the past year there have been at least seven different bailouts, and six different strategies. And none of them seem to have pleased anyone except a handful of financiers.

(...)

Rather than tackle the source of the problem, the people running the bailout desperately want to reinflate the credit bubble, prop up the stock market and head off a recession. Their efforts are clearly failing: 2008 was a historically bad year for the stock market, and we'll be in recession for some time to come. Our leaders have framed the problem as a "crisis of confidence" but what they actually seem to mean is "please pay no attention to the problems we are failing to address."

Do read the whole thing.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 09:27:57 AM EST
It's worth reading the companion piece which analyses the inherent flaws in Wall Streets over-reliance upon the risk managmement tool of "Value at risk" (VaR), epsecially when traders learnt to game the system to their advantage. It's an overlong article which could be halved to benefit, but there's a lot of good stuff to chew on.

NYT - Joe Nocera - Risk Management

Indeed, Ethan Berman, the chief executive of RiskMetrics (and no relation to Gregg Berman), told me that one of VaR's flaws, which only became obvious in this crisis, is that it didn't measure liquidity risk -- and of course a liquidity crisis is exactly what we're in the middle of right now. One reason nobody seems to know how to deal with this kind of crisis is because nobody envisioned it.

In a crisis, Brown, the risk manager at AQR, said, "you want to know who can kill you and whether or not they will and who you can kill if necessary. You need to have an emergency backup plan that assumes everyone is out to get you. In peacetime, you think about other people's intentions. In wartime, only their capabilities matter. VaR is a peacetime statistic."



keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 09:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... the chief executive of RiskMetrics ... told me that one of VaR's flaws, which only became obvious in this crisis, is that it didn't measure liquidity risk -- and of course a liquidity crisis is exactly what we're in the middle of right now. One reason nobody seems to know how to deal with this kind of crisis is because nobody envisioned it.
Oh, what a load of humanure!

European Tribune: Lazy Quote Diary: This Should Never Have Happened by Migeru on December 25th, 2007

The first of the books I want to quote from is John C. Hull's Options, Futures and Other Derivatives. The last (30th) chapter of the book is called Derivatives mishaps and what we can learn from them. Clearly what can be learned has not been learned because the book says the following:
...

Do not ignore liquidity risk

Financial engineers usually base the pricing of exotic instruments and instruments that trade infrequently on the prices of actively traded instruments. ...

This practice is not unreasonable. However, it is dangerous to assume that less-actively traded instruments can always be traded at close to their theoretical price. When financial markets experience a shock of one sort or another there is often a "flight to quality". Liquidity becomes very important to investors, and illiquid instruments often sell at a big discount to their theoretical values. Trading strategies that assume large volumes of relatively illiquid instruments can be sold at short notice at close to their theoretical values are dangerous.

...

... it is all there in this chapter of the book everyone is supposed to have read! (Admittedly, this chapter was added to the 5th edition in 2003, but still...)

...

The second book I want to quote from is Nassim Taleb's 1997 Dynamic Hedging: Managing Vanilla and Exotic Options which is nowadays marketed as "Taleb on Risk". This is a very technical practical book but it is also full of qualitative insight of a general nature. And it has been in print (and sold very well) for the past 10 years. So, unlike that last chapter of Hull which was only added in 2003, veteran risk managers cannot claim that they were not aware of the stuff in Taleb's book. And yet...

...

Liquidity and Risk Management

It cannot be stressed enough that liquidity is the most serious risk management problem. A substantial part of unforeseen losses is due either to market jumps caused by illiquidity or to liquidation costs that substantially move the market against one's position. Liquidation costs tend to be usually underestimated since operators usually "fade" when someone is forced into a market action

The appropriate answer to anyone who says "nobody envisioned this" is "my arse they didn't".

Not to speak of the fact that both books contain criticism of VaR (stronger and more pointed in the case of Taleb).

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:17:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, good, I'm glad you're around to critique it, but you should read the whole article cos the "nobody could have predicted" stuff isn't really what it's about. What he's saying is that the predictive insturments they used lulled them into a false sense of security, especially after VaR became the standard model which led to traders performing to the evaluation rather than to the good of the company.

As they wrote elsewhere the problem with VaR is that 99% of the time that's the most you can lose, but ever so occasonally it's the least you will lose. So you'd better have other analysis going on and the point being that, most of the time, VaR was all they had.

btw taleb gets a starring role in the article

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
naked capitalism also doesn't like the article. There's a bunch of pretty graphs on the page, but I choose to highlight the media criticism:

naked capitalism: Woefully Misleading Piece on Value at Risk in New York Times

By neglecting to expose this basic issue, the piece comes off as duelling experts, and with the noisiest critic of VaR, Nassim Nicolas Taleb, dismissive and not prone to explanation, the defenders get far more air time and come off sounding far more reasonable.

It similarly does not occur to Nocera to question the "one size fits all" approach to VaR. The same normal distribution is assumed for all asset types, when as we noted earlier, different types of investments exhibit different types of skewness. The fact that VaR allows for comparisons across investment types via force-fitting gets nary a mention.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 03:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's nice to know that when these finer details - sorry, this 'basic issue' - was taken into account by serious people, no real mistakes were made.

Shouldn't someone tell the markets that as long as you do a little statistical diddling VaR works just fine?

The last year has been a lot of fuss over nothing, clearly.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 03:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was gonna precis the Nocer article (it really is pointlessly long), but if he's wrong, or there are more complex arguments that need to be incorporated I'm probably out of my depth.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 03:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Lewis article is a model of insightful and easy-to-read argument. Excellent stuff!

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 09:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

2009 Could Be Better Than You Think

Never mind those campaign calls for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Truth is, no politician is going to push for general tax increases in the midst of a severe recession.

You may wonder: How is the government going to pay for that trillion-dollar stimulus package? Or the multitrillion-dollar bailout of financial institutions, auto companies and anyone else sideswiped by the current crisis? Or the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or the (still) rapidly rising cost of the baby boomers' retirement?

Well, that's the sweet secret of the current crisis. While the American people are learning to live within their means, the new American government has discovered an unlimited (for now) line of credit. The United States may have led the world into this crisis, but the world now seems more than willing to lend us unlimited amounts of money to lead the way out.

This, too, is unsustainable. A reckoning will come. But that's a problem for 2010 and beyond.

It's interesting to note the indirect acknowledgement in the WSJ that not increasing taxes on the rich is unsustainable even if the point they're ostensibly making is that "taxes are unlikely to be raised this year, yippee"...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 11:12:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but if "not increasing taxes on the rich is unsustainable", then the WSJ makes itself look ridiculous, even by its own measures, by promoting as economic virtue policies that cause long term harm simply to satisfy short term greed.

If taxes have to be raised, then it's better to get started now than carry on and making things worse later on. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible, even Murdoch must realise that.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 01:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
note that this is not in the Op-Ed pages. The paper has always been more reality-based than its opinion pages - the two teams are completely separate, in fact.

But who cares bout tomorrow?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
FYI I passed on the Russia/Ukraine diary to a freelance business journalist who will get to work on her contacts after Wednesday. I corrected the obvious mistakes, but it will have to be translated anyway. She writes pieces for most of the main Finnish business papers. Can you email your byeline info to me, just in case?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Jérôme Guillet, an investment banker for the energy sector, is the editor of European Tribune (www.eurotrib.com), a news and debate website"

Do you need more?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that's good - I'll let you know if they ask for more.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Certain that this will be of great interest to ET  ;-)), you should all know what an exciting day i've had here in rainy Bremen.  I hoovered the place, and cleaned the bathroom and kitchen.  Unpacked the hard drive and let Time Machine bring me up to the present.  Filed a shitload of receipts for my Steuerberater.

And decided to look at my other mobile, where i discovered that both J and Anya had sent New Year's greetings.  Danke.  (J, i wished you and all here greetings in the OT.)

All the while drinking Mimosas with Crèmant.  That should set me up well to finally see Bonjour Sagan.  I have respect for Diane Kurys, but we'll see.

I hope Helen's doing well, and Drew survived Manhattan.  I hope Doc Triloqvist is feeling better and more mobile, and Melancthon's still waiting patiently for my writing.  The world remains insane, so i won't comment, knowing linca's on the case.  I still wish there were more Germans here.

It's nice to know the rain is cleaning the glass ceiling.  Prost all, let you know what it's like to be an 18 year old girl driving an Aston Martin later.  (I have a date!)

Skennah Kowa

by Crazy Horse on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 09:42:10 AM EST
Don't think that your real first name is an obligation ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 09:49:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just an option... ;)
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 12:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep, I'm doing okay, working away at my treadmill to encourage my stomach to shrink. It's disappointing to see how much being ill has taken out of me, I tire easily on the machine so I'm doing lots of short stuff rather one long slog.

I keep looking longingly at my little stock of malty heaven in the back room when I go in there, but I'll get over that in an eon or two.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 10:30:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
hang a bottle from a string just out of reach of the front of the treadmill, see if that helps ;-)

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 01:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that would be cruel beyond words.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 01:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The carrot, but what's the stick? ;-) Sorry Helen, we're only trying to get you to see the funny side. Say stop.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The stick is that I can't have a beer till I lose weight.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL, read that you are preparing recipes for your Steuerberater - and thought how nice that you seem to share a liking for cooking. Well, I guess it is not what you ment and hope it is not about cooking the books. :-D
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 12:47:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
After the shit movie, i actually cooked dinner for a woman my age, rather than my steuerberater.  since she's still here, i'll go back offline.

Fran, that was actually very funny.

Skennah Kowa

by Crazy Horse on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:40:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The holidays are over, time to come back and comment on ET!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 12:35:59 PM EST
Not over until tomorrow.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 12:41:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I doubt politics will really start until after Obama has his feet under the Oval office desk.

Up till then we've got lots of positionings, but no action.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 01:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is life outside US politics.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 01:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure, but there's an awful lot going on right now that really does look like a holding pattern till the next US pres.

I do think that, beyond the electioneering aspect, the whole Gaza thing is influenced by Israeli expectations they won't be able to get away with this shit in feb.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:40:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | A prediction that's a safe bet
Getting rich quick - and having much more money than you ever need - will look as pointless as taking bodybuilding too seriously, says Clive James.

This is my last broadcast until my next spell and I'm in a summing up mood. I have no New Year resolutions apart from the usual one about tidying my office in case the body of my missing cleaner is lying mummified under that pile of magazines.

But I do feel like making a New Year prediction. I want to put down a marker that proves I have a grip on world events. The best way to prove this is to make a prediction that everybody knows has already come true, but that few people are yet ready to admit.

I hereby predict that from now on, starting today, nobody will look good who gets rich quick. I can predict more than that, in fact. Even getting rich slowly is going to look silly, if getting rich is the only aim in mind.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 01:13:12 PM EST
Well Clive, as a very comfortably well off person, is in no position to lecture the rest of us about how uncouth the yearnings of the rest of us might be, imo.

Maybe we shouldn't praise the getting rich quick, or even slowly, but i'm pretty sure it beats increasing impoverishment, which many face.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 01:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well, to be fair to him he says that making money when the sole goal is to make money is going to be out of fashion - and the bodybuilding example is actually quite apt to convey his point: being in good shape is a good thing (as you would know given your activities of the day!), but having bulging muscles can easily become ridiculous.

If it were true that big money were to become only a nice by-product of otherwise satisfying activities, it would be quite a change; of course, it's still rather unlikely.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmm, define "satisfying". Seriously, I have almost never had a "satisfying" job. I have never had a career, just been trapped in various kinds of tedious job I was usually unsuited to performing.

and I seriously believe that most people are in such situations. We don't do work because we actually like what we do, we do it so's we can sod off after our contracted hours and try to squeeze in what little life we can afford.

so, I guess when I see some guy who's had a pretty good life and had the fortune to be very well paid for living it lecture me about the awfulness of getting a lot of money I tend to get a little chippy about it. Esepcially when I'm pretty much broke and getting a few ridiculous unearned megabucks seems pretty damn attractive.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Helen:
so, I guess when I see some guy who's had a pretty good life and had the fortune to be very well paid for living it lecture me about the awfulness of getting a lot of money I tend to get a little chippy about it. Esepcially when I'm pretty much broke and getting a few ridiculous unearned megabucks seems pretty damn attractive.

That doesn't make it a useful fantasy. For nearly everyone, it isn't.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is really about reasonably well-off people finally happy to think that the rich will not lord over them.

Hmmm... maybe this is the upper midle class finally realizing it's been had and wanting to bring down to size the upper class?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I accept that is the background, but when one sees the rewards available in the media that have only  fallen behind finance as a source of income seemingly detached from reality in the last few years, I have to say that, from where i am, this is the pot calling the kettle black.

And if he isn't aware of this seeming hypocrisy, then he is as guilty of being insufferably smug as I suggest.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 03:23:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
UK TV personalities and 'humorists?' Insufferably smug?

Good lord - perish the thought.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 03:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Look, I don't know Clive James so I don't know whether he's normally smug and insufferable. What he wrote in his piece, however, is useful. In the same way that the last Viridian Note by Bruce Sterling was highly useful.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | A prediction that's a safe bet

It was agreed, back in the day, that serious artists should not look like hucksters. Now it is assumed that serious artists look even more serious if they do look like hucksters. They look bigger, more corporate, more influential. Or they did until yesterday. But now it's today, and it suddenly looks like a fast buck. It looks off. Madoff off. And it looks silly.

We've reached a turning point. A madness has gone out of fashion: the madness of behaving as if only too much can be enough. There will always be another madness, but not that one. From now on a man will have to be as dumb as an petrodollar potentate to think that anyone will respect him for sitting on a gold toilet in a private jumbo jet.


People have a need to compete on reputation and that competition has for the past 50 years mainly turned on the extent of one's physical possessions, up unto the absurdity of yachts with 100 crew and Dubai. Saying that it's no longer cool, rather, a source of embarassment has an aspect of self-fulfilment.

Maybe it will get somewhere, maybe not. What I don't understand is having resentment at the messenger.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 06:09:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Clive James is usually vapid, middle-aged, middle-brow, smug and insufferable. He's an example of certain kind of media entity common in the UK - people who may be quite bright, in a grindingly banal and everyman-ish Readers Digest in-joke kind of a way, but who still manage to craft themselves careers as commentators and 'humorists.'

So it galls for two reasons - one of which is that James himself is unlikely to be poor, and the second of which is that what he's saying isn't true.

Nothing corporate will change because of anything that either Stirling or James write or say. The corporate world will still be fuelled by greed, toxic stupidity, egotism, pointless drama and social climbing for the sake of it. It may stop being fashionable to flaunt wealth - if only for fear of being lynched - but that's hardly going to stop the rest of the world from continuing to try to accumulate it.

It's a wrong-headed view because you don't take a nipple like greed away from people without giving them something else to suck on. Currently there's no replacement - survival is still on the same Darwinian branch with the same value set. Instead of accumulating when you win, you don't lose your home or your life.

That may be evidence of a New Seriousness - which may even be Far More Serious than last year's Seriousness was.

But it's not much of a real change, and it's certainly not a progressive one.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 06:46:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The subject field was intended to be a bit sarcastic. But there's something to it, maybe. Anecdotally, friends of my parents were complaining about the 'My Super Sweet Sixteen' show on MTV in the context of talking about the financial crisis. But will the show be cancelled?

Anyway, I'm hopeful about a general shift away from materialism in popular culture and Clive is doing his part in propagandising it, so bully for him.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The light was flat and dull today but I did have adventures with friends on Sully Island - as seen from the beach when Helen visited.

We decided to climb down the rocks from the cliff to the beach at the back of the island and I managed to wedge my bag (with tripod strapped to it) in the V of some rocks and found myself stuck, hanging over a ledge and kept in place by my bag.  We then had a full workout scrambling around the island on the rocks to get back to the causeway before the tide cut us off.  The only damage was muddy jeans.

Here's my friend's son playing by the rock pool.
Photobucket

I have also done all of my washing, tidied up, and done the supermarket shop AND got all of my loose coppers and silvers turned into a cash voucher which paid for the shopping and then some.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 01:25:28 PM EST
I have also done all of my washing

in the rock pool?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 01:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, rather than waste water.

Ad astra per aspera
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 01:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Alright, Baltiless has us pinned down at the 4 yard line.  Tie game.  Nervous, nervous, nervous.

I have completely fallen in love with the Village in New York.  Marek, what's the matter with you, living in Brooklyn?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:01:36 PM EST
Now Drew, don't start that esoteric nonsense about first downs and wide receivers. Why can't you be civilized? ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:04:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Meh, we got our asses kicked, 27-9.  Oh well, what a great season anyway.  We'll be back.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 04:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Village (East & West) was me old stomping grounds decades ago.  Knew every little nook and cranny.  

My one brush with Sven's world: I personally gave John Lennon and Yoko Ono pinko commie literature, passing out invitations to a lecture at the International Workman's Circle IIRC  - standing at the famous intersection of 4th Street and 4th Street, no less! - back in the 70s.

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I probably would've loved it during your time there, presumably before it was gentrified and Disneyfied.  But still, a really pretty part of the city, especially around Christopher St Station and Washington Square Park.  Love it.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 04:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The 70s look better in hindsight.  (Trust me on this! :-)

There were definite problems with the East Village with poverty, crime, drugs, crumbling buildings, corrupt city government & all the rest of it.  

The West Village, even during my time, was slowly shading into being intellectually dead.  

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 05:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the East Village has always been a bit rough, as I understand it.  Had a buddy who lived just off 21st and (I think) 1st, down near Belle Vue, and that's pretty good, but you can definitely see alphabet city showing up by that point.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 05:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You'll laugh at this article about the new Yankees stadium

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:49:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I did laugh.  Thanks.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 04:22:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Really great Canadian stout at a place called Stout on 33rd by the way.  Interesting how the warmer temperature of it brings out the flavor to such a great extent.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 04:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I keep telling you that. I will never accept that ice cold is any way to serve a beer

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 05:24:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama commerce nominee pulls out

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has withdrawn as US President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for commerce secretary, US media reports say.
Mr Richardson's decision was linked to a pending investigation into a company which has done business with his state, NBC news reported.


You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:18:44 PM EST
this is a better way out than the xxxx scandal likely to surface at some point.  but very sad.

Skennah Kowa
by Crazy Horse on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 02:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It appears Obama's vetting of the people in his incoming administration is nothing short of gruelling.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 03:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is.  Too gruelling, in my opinion.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 04:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is Obama afraid of?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 05:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(shrug) Hell if I know.  Distractions?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 05:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, on change.org, when they asked for applicants, people were supposed to provide links to ALL of their blog writing (including coments on blogs), and to outline anything that might be embarrasing to Obama.

I'm not sure how any regular blogger could be appropriately vetted.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 05:28:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
MARS, BITCHES!!!!!!

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

[Drew's WHEEEEE™ Technology]

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 05:39:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am told "Serge Brammertz [the Chief Prosecutor at the ICTY, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] gave an interview in Croatia and his words were interpreted as saying that he'll prove that the Croats are a genocidal nation. [Ante] Gotovina's defence lawyer asked Brammertz whether he can place Knin on the map and said he had no right to talk in such terms about things he has no clue about, to offend a nation's feelings or to lie. And he accused him of lying on the [artillery] diaries he's requesting. [The defence lawyer] said that Carla del Ponte who was Brammertz's predecessor said they had all the evidence they needed and that he [the defence] has evidence that they [the ICTY] have most of the diaries they are requesting but they are hiding them because with them they cannot prove anything, that they realise that they have no case and they are looking for a way out".

Now, some background.

Ante Gotovina is on trial for war crimes as the commanding officer of Operation Storm, which retook the Krajina in 1995. The Krajina is the border region between Croatia and Bosnia and, together with Slavonija (along the border between Croatia and Serbia), it made up the self-proclaimed Serb Republic of Krajina (1991-95).

The "diaries" are artillery diaries of the Croatian army, presumably to establish  the shelling of civilian targets.

I find the following stories in English: one from Radio Serbia (3 January 2009)

Hague Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz has stated that it is not very probable that the key evidence about the Croatian "Storm" operation from 1995 have simply gone missing. He said there is reason to believe that someone is hiding intentionally the evidence against three Croatian generals - Ante Gotovina, Mladen Markac and Ivan Cermak. Brammertz has told the Zagreb VECERNJI LIST daily that the Tribunal has been asking for those documents from Croatia for the last 18 months and that it has been discussed in all meetings with the Croatian authorities. As a reminder, during the "Storm" action in August 1995, more than 250 thousand Serbs were expelled and more than 2,500 were killed or went missing.
Prior to this there was a press conference around Brammertz's report to the UN Security Council three weeks ago:
... Croatian officials had answered most Former Yugoslavia Tribunal requests, but they had given partial responses on the case involving former General Ante Gotovina and had yet to hand over key military documents. (webnewswire.com 12/13/2008)
A similar story in Voice of America also refers only to "some documents". A Croatian source, javno.hr, explains that the "key documents" are artillery diaries.

Allegedly the Netherlands is pressuring Croatia on these diaries by threatening to block the EU accesion negotiations over this issue. Croatia's accession was blocked in the past over the failure to produce Gotovina, who was finally arrested in Spain in December 2005. (See ET diaries on the arrest by soj - with extensive background - and IdiotSavant)

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 03:08:54 PM EST
Either he has the evidence or he doesn't. I tend to take the view that, in such situations, the more people talk about what they'll do, the less they have the means to do it.

which is to say, he suspects the evidence exists somewhere, but he doesn't have it and is pretending he does to flush it out. Or something.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 03:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
18.7.2008., ICTY:

Croatia resolutely rejects allegations of obstruction of cooperation with ICTY, said Croatian Ambassador to the Netherlands Frane Krnic.

"Croatia does not have any reason not to meet the documentation prosecutor's office or the Court if the competent authorities of the Republic of Croatia can find in their archives," said Krnic.

He recalled that Croatia, of 790 requests from the Prosecutor's Office had met 788 in a satisfactory way, and only 2 are only partially unresolved.

He also pointed out that since the beginning of cooperation with the Hague Tribunal Croatia submitted 19,500 different documents of more than a hundred thousand pages from the Ministry of Defence, while from the Office of the President were sent 666 transcripts.

He also said that Croatia believes that some of requested documents do not exist.

 Gordan Markotić, Assistant Minister of Justice in charge of cooperation with the ICTY, said that  after the reques from the Prosecutor's Office on the 10th Nov. 2006. investigators provided an insight into the archive MoI and the MoD's.

 According to him, in the war circumstances, the war diaries were not properly conducted and prepared, and that it is evident from the fact that some of them were discovered in the field by UN officers.

 After that, the meeting was briefly closed to the public, because the Markotić talked about some confidential information about the internal investigation carried out by the Defence Ministry and the Interior Ministry.

 In the open part of the hearing, Markotić said that among the other documents, there were 14 documents that were presented to the Prosecutor's Office still in 2004 and they are asking for them again.

In the hearing, prosecutor Alan Tieger accused Croatia of systematic hiding of documents that incriminate croatian national interests.

 "If the Croatian side claims that some documents do not exist, logically that they will not even look for them," commented the president judge Alphos Orie.

 Tiger repeated several times that the people who obstructed the cooperation in the 90-ties are still active today, citing the period of 1996. Judge Orie proposed that he "focuses on the present."

by SteelLady on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 10:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is this a translation of a Croatian text or an original, and can you give a link? I can't find it on google.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 5th, 2009 at 04:46:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's worth to dig up the official statements on this, too. From Brammertz's speech in the protocols of the 12 December 2008 UN SC meeting (click the link titled "S/PV.6041" here if mine doesn't work):

Croatia has responded to most requests for assistance from the Office of the Prosecutor. However, we continue to seek access to key documents and archives in the Gotovina case. Over the past year and a half, these specific documents have been at the centre of discussions with Croatian authorities. After several failed attempts to obtain these documents and at the request of the Office of the Prosecutor, the Trial Chamber ordered Croatia to provide a detailed report specifying the efforts undertaken to obtain the requested documents. In response to the Chamber's order, Croatia provided a report and supporting documents. Since my written report, Croatia also provided additional documents requested by my Office, thereby complying, in part, with the Tribunal's order.

However, still at this date, key military documents remain unaccounted for and, in our view, further steps remain to be taken. The matter remains before the Tribunal. As the trial is in progress, it is crucial that the remaining requested key documents be made available immediately.

Ironically, that session was chaired by the Croatian Ambassador to the UN. He replied:

The President: I would now like to make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Croatia.

...

For its part, Croatia remains committed, as always, to full and unequivocal cooperation with the Tribunal. Over the years, the Croatian Government has demonstrated the seriousness of its commitment by developing a close working relationship and extending its assistance to the Tribunal on a host of different issues, including by granting access to a staggering amount of sensitive documentation emanating from the highest military and police authorities. It is in our shared interest to continue cooperating in good faith and in a responsible and professional manner.

I would like to stress that, in Gotovina's case alone, the Croatian Government has delivered close to 2,000 specific and sensitive police and military documents, as requested by the Office of the Prosecutor. This clearly indicates that extensive and intense cooperation does exist and will continue in the future, because the search for additional documents is still ongoing.

Croatia is determined to do all in its power to meet the Prosecutor's remaining request. This is the message that has been unequivocally conveyed to the Prosecutor from the highest State authorities, and to that end the Government has, over the reporting period, undertaken a number of operational measures -- administrative, as well as investigative and judicial steps -- against certain individuals. Croatia continues to conduct administrative and criminal investigations with the aim of determining whether those documents exist and if they were unlawfully taken and, if so, of identifying the persons responsible and bringing them to justice. We note that the Prosecutor has taken into account the additional steps that Croatia has taken since the submission of his written report.



*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 5th, 2009 at 05:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you make of this? For me, that defence lawier sounds off, "his words were interpreted as saying that he'll prove that the Croats are a genocidal nation" sounds ballistic, and I have seen post-war Krajina with my own eyes.

The Krajina is the border region between Croatia and Bosnia and, together with Slavonija (along the border between Croatia and Serbia), it made up the self-proclaimed Serb Republic of Krajina (1991-95).

Nitpicks:

  1. The self-proclaimed Serb Republic of Krajina occupied only the two ends of Slavonia: the former "SAO Slavonia" at the Western end along the Northern border of Bosnia, and the former "SAO East Slavonia" that was originally taken by the JNA from Serbia proper.

  2. The Western Slavonian region was re-taken in Operation Flash, which preceded Operation Storm.

  3. Eastern Slavonia was never taken militarily, it reintegrated into Croatia peacefully.


*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 04:39:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know what to make of it.

The defence lawyer appears to want to drum up patriotic support for Gotovina at home, not that that will do him any good anyway since Gotovina is already under arrest in The Hague... words like that might have had a "useful" effect when Croatia was being asked to surrender Gotovina in 2005.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to lend some credence to the claim that the ICTY's prosecutors maybe haven't been able to assemble a watertight case against Gotovina and are desperate. Milosevic gave Del Ponte a run for her money during the trial, and he was running his own defence.

As for "his words were interpreted as saying that he'll prove that the Croats are a genocidal nation", I can't search the Croatian online press for the original interview text or a sample of the reactions. Maybe that is an accurate description of the Croatian press commentary going ballistic over the interview.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 05:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll also grant you that given the precedent of Iraq and its WMD, it can well be the case that sought-after documents don't exist (be it because they were never prepared, or that they were destroyed long ago). However, I find the initial quoted outrage has little to do with evidence.

I can't search the Croatian online press for the original interview text or a sample of the reactions.

Here is Brammertz's interview with Vecernji list, and here is the defence lawier's reaction. Google Translate is your friend.

The interview is long, and most of it is in general terms (not specifically about Croatia). Here is the part on Gotovina (with my admittedly amateurish attempts to improve upon Google Translate):

Brammertz: Netko je skrio ključne dokaze protiv Gotovine Brammertz: Someone skrio% u010Dne key evidence against Gotovina
* Hrvati pamte bivšu tužiteljicu kao negativan lik koji je optužio i priveo pravdi Suda nacionalnog heroja Antu Gotovinu (prema jednom istraživanju provedenom kad je Gotovina uhićen, podupire ga 90 posto Hrvata). Što mislite, kako će Hrvati zapamtiti Vas? Možda kao osobu pod kojom je Tužiteljstvo osudilo Gotovinu? Ne može se reći da Tužiteljstvo svojim početnim potezima iznosi jake dokaze. Možete li, iz svoje perspektive, komentirati kako se odvija izvođenje dokaza Tužiteljstva u ovom, za hrvatsku javnost, osjetljivom predmetu?* Croats remember the former Prosecutor as a negative character who accused and brought before Court national hero Ante Gotovina (according to a poll conducted when Gotovina was arrested, 90 percent of Croats supported him). What do you think, how will Croats remember you? Perhaps as a person under whom the prosecution sentenced Gotovina? It can not be said that the prosecution has strong evidence. Can you, from your perspective, comment on how the presentation of the prosecution's evidence will happen in this, for the Croatian public, sensitive case?
- Ne mogu komentirati suđenje koje je u tijeku. Gospodin Gotovina je, kao i svaki drugi optuženi, nevin dok se ne dokaže suprotno. Što se tiče Tužiteljstva, izvodimo dokaze koji podupiru navedene optužbe. Događaji koji se odnose na predmet Gotovina, Čermak i Markač vrlo su važan dio nedavne hrvatske povijesti i nadam se da će presuda pomoći hrvatskoj javnosti da bolje razumije što se dogodilo 1995.
I can not comment on the trial, which is in progress. Mr. Gotovina is, like any accused, innocent until you prove the opposite. As for the prosecution, it will present evidence to support these charges. Events that relate to the subject of Gotovina, Cermak and Markac are a very important part of the recent Croatian history and I hope that the verdict will help the Croatian public to better understand what happened in 1995.
* Možete li komentirati problem "izgubljenih dokumenata" koje je Tužiteljstvo zatražilo od hrvatske vlade (u slučaju Gotovina)? Je li to ozbiljan problem (između Hrvatske i Međunarodnog suda) ili samo dio jedne pravne bitke u određenom predmetu? Kako Vi na to gledate?* Can you comment on the problem of "lost documents" that the prosecution requested from the Croatian government (in the case of Gotovina)? Is this a serious problem (between Croatia and the Tribunal), or only part of a legal battle in a particular case? How do you look at it?
- Te važne dokumente tražimo već više od 18 mjeseci. O tome sam razgovarao s hrvatskim vlastima na svim našim sastancima i morali smo zatražiti obvezujući nalog, koji je izdalo sudsko vijeće. Čini nam se malo vjerojatno da ključni dokumenti koji se odnose na jednu važnu vojnu operaciju mogu jednostavno nestati. Imamo razloga vjerovati da su neke osobe te dokumente namjerno sklonile ili sakrile. Zato još uvijek tražimo te ključne vojne dokumente, i to ostaje važno pitanje koje se nalazi u središtu naše suradnje s Hrvatskom. U ovom trenutku taj problem se nalazi i pred sucima, i, s obzirom na to da je predmet Gotovina u tijeku, nadamo se da će biti riješen što prije to bude moguće.
- We have been asking for these important documents for more than 18 months. I mentioned this to the Croatian authorities in all our meetings, and we had to request a binding order, which was issued by the judicial council. It seems to us unlikely that key documents that pertain to a major military operation might simply disappear. We have reason to believe that some people hid documents deliberately. That's why we are still asking for the key military documents, and it remains an important question that lies at the center of our cooperation with Croatia. At this time, this issue is also before the judges, and, considering that the Gotovina trial is in progress, we hope that it will be resolved as soon as possible.

That's it.

 Brammertz comes closest to suggest something wrong with Croatia in general when he speaks about helping the "Croatian public" to "better understand what happened in 1995" -- implying that the Gotovina-supporting 90% has the wrong idea of what happened. (My cynical self contends that a not insignificant part of that 90% did know very well what happened, but condoned it.) Indeed the lawyer's sputtering response was triggered by this passage only -- and there I find all that was referenced to you, with all the bombast and attempt to drum up patriotic support:

Mišetić: Neće nas Brammertz učiti o istini o Oluji i Gotovini Mišetić: Brammertz will not teach us about the truth of the Storm and Gotovina
Reakcija obrane generala Ante Gotovine na ekskluzivni intervju sa Sergeom Brammertzom u Večernjem listu bila je brza. Glavni haaški tužitelj ustvrdio je da netko skriva ključne dokaze protiv Gotovine, a Luku Mišetića, glavnog branitelja Gotovine, koji je u stanci suđenja otišao kući u SAD, jako je zasmetala Brammertzova izjava: "Događaji koji se odnose na predmet Gotovina, Čermak i Markač vrlo su važan dio nedavne hrvatske povijesti i nadam se da će presuda pomoći hrvatskoj javnosti da bolje razumije što se dogodilo 1995."The reaction of Gen. Ante Gotovina's Defense to the exclusive interview with Sergei Brammertz in Vecernji list was fast. The Hague chief prosecutor stated that someone is hiding key evidence against Gotovina, and Luka Misetic, the main defender of Gotovina, who gave his opinion from his home in United States, is very displeased with this statement of Brammertz: "The events that are related to the subject of Gotovina, Cermak and Markac are a very important part of the recent Croatian history and I hope that the verdict will help the Croatian public to better understand what happened in 1995."
Uvreda građanima
- Ovu izjavu smatram teškom uvredom hrvatskih građana, tko je Serge Brammertz da Hrvatima drži lekcije o tome što moraju znati i saznati što im se događalo u ratu?! Siguran sam da do prije dvije godine on nije mogao na karti zemaljskoj naći Knin, a nisam siguran da to može i danas - izjavljuje Luka Mišetić.
Insult to citizens
- I consider this statement a severe insult to Croatian citizens, who is Serge Brammertz to holds lessons for Croats on what to know and find out what had happened to them in the war? I am sure that up to two years ago he was unable to find Knin on a map, and I'm not sure that he can today - declares Luka Mišetić.
Smatra da Brammertz nije u stanju govoriti hrvatskim građanima o istini o ratu: "Svima onima koji prate suđenje jasno je da obrane drže predavanja tužiteljima o tome ratu, a ne obratno." Nada se da će, naprotiv "presuda otvoriti oči tužiteljima i nekim dijelovima međunarodne zajednice, i pokazati pravu sliku o našem ratu".He thinks that Brammertz has not been able to speak to Croatian citizens about the truth about the war: "To all those who follow the trial it is clear that the defense lectured prosecutors about the war, and not vice versa." He hopes that "the verdict will open the eyes of prosecutors and some parts of the international community, and show a true picture of our war."

Now his take on the evidence:

Što se tiče Brammertzova upornog ponavljanja da Hrvatska skriva od tužiteljstva ključne dokaze protiv Gotovine, Mišetić uzvraća kako je činjenica da tužiteljstvo ima jedan dio tzv. topničkih dnevnika, a za koje navodi da ih ne posjeduje: - Tužiteljstvo ima "sve ključne dokaze", to nije moj, nego stav prethodnice, Del Ponteove, koja je podignula optužnice generalima i tvrdila da ima "sve" dokaze o krivici. Moja bi poruka Brammertzu bila da se u dokazivanju koristi onim dokazima na temelju kojih je tužiteljstvo podignulo optužnice i ne bi trebalo biti nikakvih problema.Regarding Brammertz's persistent repeating that Croatia hides the key prosecution evidence against Gotovina, Mišetić points to the fact that the prosecution has one part of the so-called artillery diary that they say they do not possess: - prosecution has "all the key evidence," that's not my position but that of the predecessors, Del Ponte, who built the indictment against the generals and claimed to have "all" evidence of guilt. I would advise Brammertz to use the evidence prosecution put forward by the indictment and there should not be any problems.
Nemaju dokaze
No, radi se o tome da je obrana dokazala tužiteljstvu da im je teza potpuno kriva i sada oni love i navodno traže nove dokaze, jer su svjesni da nemaju dokaze protiv Gotovine, Tužiteljstvo se ponaša nefer, zaključuje Mišetić. Na Brammertza je u međuvremenu ljutita postala i službena Hrvatska, koja tvrdi da tužitelji imaju već polovicu od traženih dokumenata, a da je brojka od 150 dokumenata "proizvoljna". Dakle, izmišljena.
Do not have evidence
However, it is a fact that the defense proved prosecutorial bodies that their thesis is completely wrong and now they would like to look for supposed new evidence, because they are aware that they do not have evidence against Gotovina, prosecution has acted nefariously, says Mišetić. In the meantime official Croatia became angry at Brammertz, which claims that prosecutors have already half of the requested documents, and that the figure of 150 documents "arbitrary". So, fictional.

Something asked for for 18 months doesn't appear to be all that "new evidence".

Još ljetos, hrvatski veleposlanik u Haagu, Krnić pred sucima je pitao: pa na temelju čega su dignute optužnice protiv hrvatskih generala? Do proljeća tužiteljstvo završava, a nakon toga sa svojim svjedocima kreću obrane. Prvostupanjska presuda generalima trebala bi biti izrečena do kraja 2009.Even this year, Croatian Ambassador in The Hague, Krnic asked before the judges: so on the basis of which they boot up the indictment against Croatian generals? Until spring prosecution ends, and after that with its range of defense witnesses. The trial verdict against the generals should be received by the end of 2009.


*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 5th, 2009 at 05:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dear DoDo,

Gotovina's lawyer's reaction is completely justified.  The headline of Brammertz's interview is "SOMEONE HAS CONCEALED KEY EVIDENCE AGAINST GOTOVINA."  In the interview, Brammertz himself states in the interview:  "It seems to us unlikely that key documents that pertain to a major military operation might simply disappear. We have reason to believe that some people hid documents deliberately." One can completely understand the reaction of Gotovina's lawyer to this type of allegation by a prosecutor. It implies that the accused is guilty but that there is a cover-up preventing the prosecution from proving it.  Gotovina's lawyer was completely right to attack Brammertz for making this type of assertion.

Furthermore, Gotovina's lawyer's response was hardly "sputtering" or an attempt to "drum up patriotic support." It is an attempt to defend his client's public reputation.  Remember, it was Brammertz who first went public with the allegation that "someone is hiding evidence against Gotovina." The whole purpose of a trial is to either prove that the accused is a war criminal, or else to acquit the accused and give him his reputation back.  Brammertz wants to have it both ways:  he will try to convict him, but if he cannot convict him then he will try to make sure that he does not get his reputation back (i.e. he was guilty but the evidence of his guilt was concealed from us).  

There is a passage of Gotovina's lawyer's response which you failed to translate and which is completely on point:

Misetic states: "We have it on videotape. Carla Del Ponte in front of the Security Council giving a report three months before the start of trial in the Gotovina case, saying, 'We have all the evidence necessary to convict Gotovina.' So let me pose the question: What changed from the time when the Prosecution before trial was claiming that it had 'all the necessary evidence', to now during the trial Mr. Brammertz putting out stories about how 'critical evidence' against Gotovina is being withheld? The Prosecution is playing a game in order to prepare the foundation for Gotovina's eventual acquittal. When that time comes, they will say 'of course he was guilty, but you see we couldn't prove it because 'critical evidence' was withheld from us.' But with this story the Prosecution is desperately avoiding the fundamental question: what was the Prosecution's evidentiary basis for indicting him in the first place?"

by grabovcan (grabovcan@aol.com) on Mon Jan 5th, 2009 at 06:39:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe that, to put some light to all of this, people should see some details from trials to Gotovina. I am not sure if somebody can dig up the details of conversations (not only general reports) from the trials, I have dates and names of different moments of the trial...
by SteelLady on Mon Jan 5th, 2009 at 06:49:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Brammertz has to prove that Gotovina aimed deliberately civil objects but they do not have the proof for this (If you see some moments of trial till now, you will understand that what they are trying to demonstrate really does not hold the water). So, among
the documents he does have are some artillery diaries, partially found lost on the ground by UN officers, some came from Croatian archives. He does not have any evidence that any more of them exist, he supposes that they must have existed because he needs it to prove his case. Croatian part says that that's all they have and that there is nothing more within their reach. The
accusation that not the whole time is covered they explain with negligence of soldiers who either lost some part (that is not impossible because some parts were already found by UN) or they were not written (that is also possible considering that they were even leaving them around). So, if they do not exist, the
Croatian government can not do anything and the thing can go forever. If they did exist, Croatian government would not do anything if Brammertz does not face them with the evidence that they existed or with clear indications who hid it. But the fact is that Brammertz does not have anything more but his imaginative proof he would like to have.
by SteelLady on Mon Jan 5th, 2009 at 07:22:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I found english transcripts of the ICTY trial. There are a lot of interesting details but there is so much material that we can not analyse it here, maybe in the future I will put some more. One of the transcripts is here:

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/trans/en/080408ED.htm

There is a tape introduced with the witness 6 of the prosecution that shows 'Knin bombarded all over'. The defensor asked for the original copy of the prosecution where, instead of the sirens and bombarding you can hear birds singing. And later he has shown that instead of the town bombarded in many places, the serbian colonel that provided the proof recorded the image putting himself in the center of the smoke of the Tvik factory (which was producing weapons) recording towards outside so it appeared that everything around is covered with smoke.

There were various proofs of this kind during the trial, the school that was hit because it was closed with army troops inside, one projectile beside the hospital, beside which lied the weapon the serbian side was shooting from. I believe all of these things can be found in different transcripts from the trial. So, if the prosecution does not find strong evidence in photographic material that would show that the civil points were deliberately aimed, the written affirmation from Gotovina's soldiers that they did it, would be a nice solution for the prosecutor. Besides, why would someone prefer artillery diaries to photographic evidence that is taken a lot during the war?

There are these kind of proofs that particular houses were being destroyed, not by artillery but by perticulars (war vultures going around those houses committing robbery, burning the houses or killing) but they can not prove that Gotovina had the control of them.

by SteelLady on Mon Jan 5th, 2009 at 09:25:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll also grant you that given the precedent of Iraq and its WMD, it can well be the case that sought-after documents don't exist (be it because they were never prepared, or that they were destroyed long ago).

That or, more to the point, the shameful spectacle of the Saddam trial.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 5th, 2009 at 04:01:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Something asked for for 18 months doesn't appear to be all that "new evidence".

In this case "new" means "in addition to that used in the indictment", clearly.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 5th, 2009 at 05:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Point of clarification. First, Brammertz hasn't been looking for this for "18 months,"  he's been looking for it for six months.  That is to say, he started asking for it IN THE MIDDLE OF TRIAL.  If it was such "important" evidence, why didn't he ask for it before trial?  Second, both the Tribunal Court and the Croatian government have ruled that there is no convincing proof that the "evidence"  Brammerts says was "hidden,"  ever exited in the first place.  Brammertz's arguments are circular.  He can't prove that what he's looking for ever existed, so he says it was "hidden."  And no one can prove that the evidence is not being "hidden,"  because there is no proof that it ever exited in the first place.  

Which leads to the question:  how does Brammertz know this evidence is "crucial against Gotovina,"  if no one has ever seen it and no one knows if it ever existed?

Brammertz is just creating excuses here.

by grabovcan (grabovcan@aol.com) on Tue Jan 6th, 2009 at 01:30:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Second, both the Tribunal Court and the Croatian government have ruled that there is no convincing proof that the "evidence"  Brammerts says was "hidden,"  ever exited in the first place.

This is not to imply that what you say isn't true, but do you have a link to document that ruling of the Tribunal?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 6th, 2009 at 04:15:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, here is the link:

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/tord/en/080916.pdf

The Trial Chamber issued an order to Croatia to intensify its search.  Within the Order, the Chamber noted at paragraph 13 that, "Based on the submissions of the Prosecution and Croatia, the Chamber is not in a position to draw any conclusion as to whether the requested documents do exist.  In particular, the Chamber considers that the aforementioned general statements of Croatia in the report dated 14 July 2008 are not sufficient, without further facts or documents to substantiate them, to establish that they do not exist."

Accordingly, there is no proof one way or the other whether such documents exist.  Croatia has not proven that the documents don't exist, but Brammertz hasn't convinced the Court that they do exist, either.  Accordingly, it is reckless of Brammertz (or else intentionally misleading) to suggest that people are "hiding incriminating evidence against Gotovina" when Brammertz cannnot even prove to the Court that the documents exist in the first place.

by grabovcan (grabovcan@aol.com) on Tue Jan 6th, 2009 at 04:35:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Flying to Singapore tomorrow.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sun Jan 4th, 2009 at 11:29:04 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]