Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
What you've done is shown that Serbs are convicted more often than you'd expect in random experiments.

But these aren't random experiments, they're not meant to be: there are a lot of possible explanations, other than bias, for the outcome.

Possibly Serbs did commit more war crimes than the others. Maybe Serbs are less likely to testify or bring evidence to the tribunal against others, making it harder to convict them.

Can I  suggest that your conclusion of bias is based on validating your own biases: you might be right, but this doesn't demonstrate it at all.

In fact, I'd be pleasantly surprised, given the narrative and political environment it's operating in, if there wasn't a bias of some sort against Serbs in the tribunal's operations.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 04:29:21 AM EST
What you've done is shown that Serbs are convicted more often than you'd expect in random experiments.

What I've done is shown that Serbs are convicted more often than in other real life cases where the victor uses 'justice' to convict and discredit the losing side. I'm not even talking about war crimes committed by the victors... which are sure to never be brought to justice.

Possibly Serbs did commit more war crimes than the others.

Do you think that Serbs are genetically more prone to commit atrocities than other groups engaged in warfare? I don't, but that's precisely what MSM and many Western governments that actively participated in the country's dismemberment want you to believe.

This is the reason I listed all those Western wars with staggering numbers of civilian casualties in Upstate NY's diary on humanitarian intervention.

Maybe Serbs are less likely to testify or bring evidence to the tribunal against others, making it harder to convict them.

I don't think so. Just take a look at what happened to Carla del Ponte when she published her book alleging that the Kosovo Albanians engaged in a commerce of organs extracted their Serb victims (POWs and kidnapped civilians). She was not-so-elegantly told to shut up and move on.

Serbs have been active in requesting international arrest warrants of suspected war criminals. But politics always has the upper hand.

by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:00:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you think that Serbs are genetically more prone to commit atrocities than other groups engaged in warfare?

What makes you think I might?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:13:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because you said that... maybe the Serbs DID commit more war crimes than the other groups. So I'm wondering what could drive a given ethnic group to be more murderous than another.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:25:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So you jump to genetic determinism? Wow.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:28:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was a question.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:33:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not a given ethnic group. The whole thing was political and it is entirely possible for a given polity to go temporarily insane (or more insane then their neighbours in a time of general insanity).

Does the fact that Nazi Germany had more war criminals than the Allies point to genetic causes, or political causes?

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 Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:40:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think everyone was equally insane. You don't have degrees of sanity in a war. The differentiating factor was military.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:57:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
vladimir:
You don't have degrees of sanity in a war.
Was there a degree of sanity in the case of WWII?

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 Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:58:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, it certainly is possible for one side to committ more atrocities than another. Look at Rwanda. It was demonstrably planned. We had accurate intelligence that it was deliberate, and the preponderance of atrocity was committed by the Hutu. Regardless of whatever criminal acts the Tutsi RPF had committed beforehand (or since), the Hutu committed a genocide. Legally, ethically, morally, and politically, the Rwandan leadership bore a preponderance of criminal culpability for that as well.

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:56:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's why the statistical analysis was based on the ratio of convicted per civilian casualty. That way, you can compare small wars to large wars. The question isn't who killed more. The question is whether the justice system is impartial in its treatment of the killers.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:01:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The scale and structure of the crimes could also be different.

It's a lot easier to prosecute for a Srebrenica, which was carried out by the regular army with defined lines of command, than for a family murdered in a remote farmhouse by a militia.  That's not bias, that's just the way it is.

Do you mind if I ask, Vladimir, what you hope to achieve?  Speaking as an outsider, I am glad to see people prosecuted for crimes against humanity.  

But I get the impression-and not for the first time-that you believe your allegations of bias undermine the need for the war crimes trials to take place. And that is something I utterly refute.  If it is true, as you allege, that some ethnic groups are not being pursued as vigorously as others, then that is something that needs to be addressed by more prosecutions. "Miss, he did it as well" isn't an acceptable excuse for a slap in the playground, never mind thousands of murders.

If I have misunderstood you, then I apologise, and please take this chance to set the record straight.

by Sassafras on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:01:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm trying to prove that the Serbs are getting shafted relative to the other groups... especially the Croats and Albanians.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, Vladmir, I still don't understand.

What would not being "shafted" look like?

If it would look like (potentially) more Croats and Albanians going before the ICTY, then I might agree with you.

If it would look like fewer Serbs being called to account, then I don't.

by Sassafras on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:22:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
More Croats and Albanians should go before the ICTY.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:26:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Names?

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 Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:27:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ramush Haradinaj immediately jumps to my mind as an example of non-justice.
Is anyone going to followup on this list? I can work on this, but it'll take some time.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:40:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wait, he went before the ICTY already.

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 Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:41:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And was scandalously acquitted. Further proof that the court is biased. Look at the staggering proportions of casualty figures in Kosovo. The guy was running a KLA unit known for its "activities" against isolated pockets of Serb villages.
by vladimir on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 03:59:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you trying to prove that the indictments are biased or that the trials are biased, or both, and are you trying to argue the point statistically or by enumerating examples,or both?

I'm confused.

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 Mar 17th, 2009 at 04:34:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm arguing that the court is biased.
I'm arguing mainly from a statistical point of view. But when I'm asked to provide examples, I provide examples.
I don't see what's confusing here... and I AM working on providing a more complete list of war crimes suspects that the Serbian government has been urging the ICTY to indict. It just takes some time.
by vladimir on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 04:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sounds like a topic for a diary, or a diary series. Don't worry about follow up. By all means speak up, and have a little faith.

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:42:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
http://glassrbije.org/E/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6737&Itemid=26
Investigation of KLA crime against YA soldiers in 1998    
30 March 2009. 14:15

New investigative actions have been taken in the Nis District Court, to establish the facts about the crimes of KLA in the area of Kosare and "Morina" border post in 1998, when six members of the Yugoslav Army were killed, and another seven wounded. Among eight suspects there are two members of the Kosovo Protection Corps. The investigation relates to two events of September 30, 1998, that took place within one hour - first the vehicle of the Yugoslav Army ran into a mine, and the second was ambush against border troopers. War Crime Prosecution Spokesperson Bruno Vekaric has stated earlier that the Prosecution has serious evidence of terrorist attacks of KLA on the border troopers in 1998, including the video recording of the ambush, headed by Agim Ramadani's terrorists, who have fled after the crime to one of the camps in the Albanian territory.


by vladimir on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 02:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
List of terrorists and members of organized criminal organizations in Kosovo & Metohiya

   1. Hajdin Abazi
   2. Ekrem Avdija
   3. Alush Agushi
   4. Rasim Agushi
   5. Nazmi Ajeti
   6. Hisni Ahmeti
   7. Abdulah Babalija
   8. Masar Bakija
   9. Idriz Bala
  10. Afrim Basha
  11. Sokol Bashota
  12. Bajram Bega
  13. Gjemajl Bejta
  14. Avni Berisha
  15. Rustem Berisha
  16. Shefik Beqiri
  17. Lahi Ibrahimi
  18. Ram Buja
  19. Shukri Buja
  20. Jah Bushati
  21. Jusuf Velia
  22. Azem Veseli
  23. Kadri Veseli
  24. Rexhep Veseli
  25. Sali Veseli
  26. Skender Veseli
  27. Besim Vokshi
  28. Latif Gashi
  29. Fahrudin Gashi
  30. Jetulah Gecaj
  31. Sabit Gecaj
  32. Gani Geci
  33. Adem Grabovci
  34. Jahir Demaku
  35. Milazim Derguti
  36. Jetulah Dibrani
  37. Sokol Dobruna
  38. Shaban Dragaj
  39. Florim Ejupi
  40. Agim Elshani
  41. Xhabir Zharku
  42. Dritton Zhjeqi
  43. Tahir Zemaj
  44. Genc Zogaj
  45. Bislim Zyrapi
  46. Nuredin Ibishi
  47. Imri Ilazi
  48. Gani Imeri
  49. Elisah Imeri
  50. Bexhet Imishti
  51. Ahmet Isufi
  52. Lirim Jakupi
  53. Januz Januzaj
  54. Bashkim Jashari
  55. Musa Jashari
  56. Rifat Jashari
  57. Sahit Jashari
  58. Naim Kadriu
  59. Giner Kamberi
  60. Ajvaz Karpuzi
  61. Ajet Kastrati
  62. Kadri Kastrati
  63. Mensur Kasumi
  64. Naser Kelmendi
  65. Hisni Kilaj
  66. Anton Kitaj
  67. Fadhil Kodra
  68. Arif Krasniqi
  69. Gani Krasniqi
  70. Gjimshit Krasniqi
  71. Emin Krasniqi
  72. Jakup Krasniqi
  73. Skender Krasniqi
  74. Bajram Kryeziu
  75. Mazlom Kumnova
  76. Mirsad Kurteshi
  77. Agim Kuqi
  78. Ramiz Lladrovci
  79. Fatmir Limaj
  80. Ekrem Lluka
  81. Isa Latifi
  82. Muhamet Latifi
  83. Lulzim Leci
  84. Afrim Lulaj
  85. Nuredin Lushtaku
  86. Sami Lushtaku
  87. Enver Mavriqi
  88. Naim Maloku
  89. Faton Mehmetaj
  90. Nazif Mehmeti
  91. Fadil Mujota
  92. Shefqet Musliu
  93. Isak Musliu
  94. Rustem Mustafa
  95. Salih Mustafa
  96. Arif Muqoli
  97. Maliq Ndrecaj
  98. Selami Neziri
  99. Jakup Nura

  1. Enver Oruçi
  2. Gjumshit Osmani
  3. Nebih Preniqi
  4. Rahman Rama
  5. Illmi Ramusholi
  6. Elmi Reqica
  7. Ekrem Rexha
  8. Bedri Rexhaj
  9. Ismet Sadiku
  10. Ruzhdi Saramati
  11. Rexhep Selimi
  12. Sylejman Selimi
  13. Abedin Sogojeva
  14. Fatmir Sopi
  15. Azem Syla
  16. Shemsi Syla
  17. Fadil Suljevic
  18. Emrush Suma
  19. Rufki Suma
  20. Ismet Tara
  21. Gani Thaqi
  22. Hashim Thaqi
  23. Ahmet Qeriqi
  24. Ramiz Qeriqi
  25. Sami Ukshini
  26. Avni Feta
  27. Adem Hagjocaj
  28. Abit Haziraj
  29. Sadik Halitjaha
  30. Xhavit Haliti
  31. Bujar Haradinaj
  32. Daut Haradinaj
  33. Ramush Haradinaj
  34. Nait Hasani
  35. Safet Hasani
  36. Xhabit Hasani
  37. Zeqir Haxhija
  38. G¸zim Haxhimusa
  39. Hekuran Hoda
  40. Fatmir Humolli
  41. Sabajdin Cena
  42. Agim Çeku
  43. Ethem Çeku
  44. Muhamet Çerkezi
  45. Emrush Xhemajli
  46. Idriz Shabani
  47. Besnik Shala
  48. Shaban Shala
  49. Shaban Shala
  50. Naser Shatri
  51. Xhafer Shatri
  52. Mustafa Shaqiri
  53. Shaqir Shaqiri
  54. Adem Shehu
  55. Elbasan Shoshaj
  56. Bekim Shuti
  57. Met Shuti

Detailed profiles of each of these accused can be found on: http://www.serbianna.com/features/lawless/
by vladimir on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 02:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The whole idea of Vladimir's posts is to 'prove' that Serbia is not the aggressor country in this war. Not only facts are against his idea but also the statistics of Serbs put on trial, as it should be. He believes that Serbia is not the aggressor country but the one who unfortunately lost the war because the whole world is against them and those who put war criminals on trial  are racist.
by SteelLady on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 03:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not see any foundation for that in vladimirs diary.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 05:03:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Statistically there is obvious inclination towards trials for Serbs. Vladimir wants to imply that the reason for this is the unfair treatment for Serbs. The 'fact' hidden in this idea is that there is equal amount of guilt 'per capita'. Without that assumption, you do not reach the same conclusion!
by SteelLady on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 06:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
if you have 2 groups on trial, from the first one, there is one murderer who killed 50 persons and in the other there are 5 who killed 2-3 each, you compare number of casualties and people on trial, what does it tell you? That the court is biased? Statistics between victim number and trials does not have any sense
by SteelLady on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 06:22:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the metric is a debatable point. The fact that the T-test is inapplicable to the data in question is not a debatable point. So naturally the critics would choose to argue about the use and abuse of T-tests.

But you're certainly right that the entire exercise is kind of silly, because the metrics we are measuring against are highly dubious in the first place. So even if there had been a signal, it would not have proven the case, only given cause for further investigation.

OTOH, that turns out not to matter, because even in the most generous possible interpretation of the data - according to the metric Vladimir proposed - there is no signal. Full stop. No deconstruction of metrics necessary.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 06:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But war is - unfortunately - not murder.

That starting a war is the ultimate crime was a noble sentiment during the Nuremberg trials but it seems to have been lost since. Or have anyone been indicted for that? (Bush and Blair certainly should be, but that is another story.)

Both military and civilian losses are often disproportionally on the loosing side of a war, regardless of who started it. But to count as a war crime you have to target civilians, not merely kill them while bombing for soldiers amongst them (as the ban on "Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons" only lasted five years and to my knowledge was not renewed). Or perform any other of the acts described as war crimes in the Hague and Geneva conventions.

So no, it is not necessary to assume anything about who started a war to assume that number of dead civilians are in proportion to number of war criminals. There are of course other assumptions that are necessary.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 04:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is one of a big misinformations of this last war. Bombings were not done aiming soldiers among civilians. Soldiers were separated on the front lines of the borders and while they were fighting there, towns with no military were bombed around the clock. And were not only bombed from occupied territories. There were long range cannons reaching 52 kilometers from the border of Serbia on Danube into the territory. And bombings began even when still there was no Croatian army formed. The one of the very few planned and strategic bombing was the one of Zagreb aiming the house of parliament. The bombings aimed on civilians were revenge for actions of Croatian army. Even during the action of Oluja in another part of country, Slavonia was receiving heavy bombing as their revenge
by SteelLady on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 05:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not believe my comment carried any specific information about bombings in any war. I just tried to convey the point that killing a lot of people does not in itself (absurdly enough) mean that there is a war crime.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 05:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If in some war there are a lot of civil victims, it means that either the army was hiding among their own civilians (what is equal war crimes for me) or that the enemy army was particularly aiming civilians that is the war crime again.

Also, there can be situations when somebody is particularly aiming on civilians and it does not result in so many casualties. Some examples of that you can see in ex Yugoslavia which built numerous atomic shelters underground (I lived in a 'town' of 20k including all the surrounding which had 11 completely equipped atomic shelters). For decades during Yugoslavia, there was an exercise practiced in spring that was called 'Nothing can surprise us'. They would turn the sirens on and people would go to the nearest shelter. The idea was to teach people during the peace where those shelters are, how they function and to practice quick evacuation.

by SteelLady on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 11:13:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I believe is that there were victims on all sides. What I also believe is that the perpetrators of war crimes came from all sides.

What you seem to believe is that Serbs were the aggressors and that the Croats, Muslims and Albanians were their victims. If what you say is true, then:
> Who is responsible for Serbian civilian casualties?
> Why did over 600 000 Serbs flee their homes to become refugees in Serbia?
> Why do Serbs represent the ethnic group that has lost by far the most personal land and property?

by vladimir on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 02:58:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In every war there are victims and war criminals on both sides. I am not saying that there are no criminals on the side other than Serbia but the fact is that Serbia was sending it soldiers to fight in Bosnia and Croatia, those were not only people there.

More, there were videos on youtube from the beginning of the war in Croatia where Serbian villans were interviewed saying that they caught arms and put trees over the roads because the stories coming from Serbian side are saying that new independent Croatia would attack them. You can't say that Serbs have ever had problems there before!

After Serbia took a big part of territories of Croatia and it stayed like that since '91. to '95, apart from local Serbs living there, there were other Serbs coming to live there because they were offered Croatian houses of those Croats that were expelled from their homes or murdered. One of many examples is a Croatian village Ceric that they renamed to Srbac. So, knowing that, Tudjman realized that if they even manage peacefully to bring back the country under their command (what was actually impossible), they will have a huge problem with Croatian refugees because it would be difficult to remove new planted Serbs from their houses. So they prepared the action 'Flash' that would be very strong and sudden, and if you follow the trial of Gotovina in detail, you will see that the voice of it (probably deliberately) came to Krajina a couple of days before it actually begun and they already prepared buses and trucks.

The point is that other nations that live in Serbia never thought of doing what some Serbs did to Croatia and Bosnia. and those SOME were commanded from Serbia. Serbia was calling them to occupy Croatian houses, giving then arms and telling them that if they do not fight they will be killed. They were even sending them buses of hookers from Belgrade to have some fun! Ones who lived there peacefully never had any problems and actually lived in shelters with us and suffered the same what we did.

And please, stop playing with speculative numbers! They say that there is some law that you can not say in Germany that there were less than 6 million of victims of holocaust. Well, they should probably change the law because they forgot to count all that Serbian victims that would elevate that number a lot! And sadly, some take that fact as an excuse to continue vendetta and kill as many as they speculate that were being killed, plus some interest.

by SteelLady on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 04:38:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that Serbia was sending it soldiers to fight in Bosnia and Croatia

Croatia was also sending it's soldiers to fight in Bosnia. Albanians were also fighting in Bosnia. Arab Mujahideens were also fighting in Bosnia and Kosovo.

You can't say that Serbs have ever had problems there before!

No kidding. Only 600 000 Serbs were murdered in Croat run death camps during WWII. With another 500 000+ sent fleeing to non HDZ territory. The same insignia used by Ustashi in WWII appeared again in the 1990's - on the Croat flag, it's police and army uniforms. That, coupled with Tudjman's anti-Serb rhetoric was clearly enough to bring back some nasty memories.

there were other Serbs coming to live there because they were offered Croatian houses

No. The documented flow of refugees was to Serbia - as of the early 1990's. Where would these new occupants have come from?

other nations that live in Serbia never thought of doing what some Serbs did to Croatia and Bosnia.

Funny you mention that, because if you take a look at the breakdown of ethic minorities in the Balkans, you'll find that the most multi-ethnic country today is... well, SERBIA.

They were even sending them buses of hookers from Belgrade to have some fun!

Busses of hookers. I see.

by vladimir on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 05:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
vladimir:
The documented flow of refugees was to Serbia - as of the early 1990's.
Didn't that start before there was any shooting?

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 Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 05:36:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It did indeed.
by vladimir on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 05:42:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why did it?

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 Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 05:44:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because of harassment.
by vladimir on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 05:55:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Documented? In a scale to justify the size of the exodus?

The Croatian claim is that rumours coming from Serbia were the cause of the exodus. I doubt that can be documented either.

The Serbs of Croatia also took arms first, in the Log Revolution.

As a part of his plea bargain with the prosecution, Milan Babić testified against Martić during his ICTY trial, saying Martić "tricked him into agreeing to the Log Revolution". He also testified that the entire war in Croatia was "Martić's responsibility, orchestrated by Belgrade".
(Wikipedia)

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 Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 06:03:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that IS a negotiated plea bargain isn't it. It's a deal with the prosecutor to plead "X" in exchange for a lenient sentence.

Biljana Plavsic also plea bargained... and today she is saying that she was 'misled' by Albright, that she misrepresented the truth in the hope of avoiding sentence.

by vladimir on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 06:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Normally one would have arranged a face-off in the courtroom between Babic and Martic. At least that's what the Spanish courts do quite often when one of the accused testifies against others.

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 Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 06:24:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do spanish courts have negotiated plea bargains? I had the impression that it was an anglo thing.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 06:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They don't. It appears face-offs are not an Anglo thing, either.

Is this going to become another Inquisitorial vs. Adversarial justice system debate? And is the ICTY run on an inquisitorial or an adversarial system?

Although international tribunals intended to try crimes against humanity, such as the Nuremberg Trials and the International Criminal Court, have generally used a version of the adversarial system, they have also incorporated some key features of the inquisitorial system, such as the use of professional judges, and in the case of the International Criminal Court, the use of a screening pre-trial chamber.


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 Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 06:51:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
And is the ICTY run on an inquisitorial or an adversarial system?

I checked the statute.

ICTY - TPIY :: Statute of the Tribunal

Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia:

September 2008 (PDF format)

It's a long pdf and my result is simply that I do not know, I think I lack the legal background to sniff out the key sentences. It would appear that the court has had some room to decide its own procedures, which might mean some mix considering the mix of judges.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 09:17:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's difficult if not impossible to pinpoint a single event as being the trigger for all-out war. I think it was more of a chain of events that escalated.

I personally know Serbs who were driven out of Dubrovnik in 1990. While the hysteria was being propagated by all media in the region (not only Serb) there were also numerous acts of violence perpetrated against individuals. I can't say whether the media was instigating or reacting to real events.

by vladimir on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 06:16:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
vladimir:
Because of harassment.

Which harassment? Yugoslavia separated. Croatia got its independence. And that is all that Croatia wanted. There was no reason to go against people who were living in it!!!

I remember my friend Jelena who also left. According to her family harassment consisted in saying that we are living in Croatia and not Yugoslavia. So the very name was a harassment for them.

by SteelLady on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 06:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your friend Jelena left because the term Croatia was a harassment. You seem to be suggesting that there were no acts of violence by croats against the Serbs as of the early 1990's. Is that right?

I also have some Serbian friends. Dusko, for instance, left Dubrovnik because his tourism and excursion shop was vandalized in 1990.

by vladimir on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 03:04:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
vladimir:
Where would these new occupants have come from?

From Serbia, those who were living in powerty in overcrowded houses with several generations under the single roof in very little space, offered houses if they move there.

by SteelLady on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 07:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So you're saying that Serbs were leaving Croatia as early as 1990 because Serb media was whipping up fear and telling them to leave (no harassment of any sort from Croatians)... and at the same time, there was a mass colonisation of Croatia by Serbs who lived in poverty?

That doesn't add up.

by vladimir on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 03:07:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Colonisation of ethinically cleansed territories. The two theories are not inconsistent - though they might be wrong.

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 Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 03:48:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Though the actors must either be inconsistent or different actors - with different motives - to at the same time promote rumors designed to make the existing population flee and try to colonize. That is, when the existing population already is the desired one.

If there where rumors that made the serb population flee that is on the other hand conssitent with croatian colonising. And vice versa.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 06:02:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's the sequence of events which I think neither vladimir nor SteelLady will dispute (broadly):
  1. 1990: some Serbs flee (mostly but not only - Dubrovnik is elsewhere - Slavonia and Krajina in) Croatia for Serbia before the war starts due to "harassment" or "rumours"
  2. 1990: some other Serbs take up arms ("Log Revolution" in Krajina) also due to "harassment" and "rumours"
  3. 1991-2: war - Republic of Serbian Krajina is established in Slavonia and Krajina and Croats in those areas flee to central Croatia.
  4. 1993-4: ceasefire
  5. 1995: Croatia retakes the Republic of Serbian Krajina and Serbs flee.

Now we go to the interpretations which can (and will) be disputed:
Though the actors must either be inconsistent or different actors - with different motives - to at the same time promote rumors designed to make the existing population flee and try to colonize. That is, when the existing population already is the desired one.
No, the existing population is very mixed. So if you're going to turn the area into a war zone you first have your people flee to the rearguard so you can take a clean shot at the others. And then you move back in. And then you're driven back out and the others move back in.

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 Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 06:24:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you first have your people flee to the rearguard so you can take a clean shot at the others.

That's only if you're firing with heavy weapons. While these were used (and not only by Serbs with JNA material - since, as we know, Germany in particular sold billions of $ worth of Soviet arms inherited from East Germany to Croatia just before the war started) the most common form of "ethnic cleansing" was carried out by light, mobile paramilitary units. You don't need to move your people out for the paras to do their dirty work. You just need to know who lives where.

by vladimir on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 06:50:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Slavonia the balance of power in 1991-2 was that the Serb paramilitaries had the artillery units left behind by the Armija on their way out of newly independent Croatia. There was extensive shelling of the whole area. The balance of power had reversed by 1995 when Croatia had managed to build its own army, which it didn't have before.

Let's be clear about who was cleansing whom when: Serbs were driving Croats out in 1991-2 and Croats drove Serbs out in 1995. Neither of these were done by "small mobile paramilitary units" - allegedly there was heavy artillery involved in both cases.

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 Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 06:54:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Croatia had been armed by Germany before 1990... and continued receiving military hardware from Germany and other NATO states up till 1995.

The balance of power was finally reversed in 1995, in part thanks to US military intelligence of key communications and logistics points used by the Croatian Serbs. NATO air support was also provided during Storm.

by vladimir on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 07:00:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Croatia had been armed by Germany before 1990...
After 1990, possibly, but before? Can you substantiate that?

In addition, there was a weapons embargo imposed as soon as Croatia declared independence, which required Croatia to smuggle weapons in, and froze the balance of power where the Serb paramilitaries had JNA backing and Croatia effectively had no army. It took 3 years (and a side war in Bosnia to keep the JNA busy) for the balance to be reversed.

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 Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 07:17:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was waiting for that question. In 1995 I remember actually seeing a copy of a contract between the Order of Malta and the "Government of Croatia" for a 20 year, $10 billion loan at - I believe it was 0% interest. At the time, it was widely believed that the loan was intended to help Croatia procure arms.

Before you asked me to substantiate, I sent a mail to the person who sent me a copy of that contract... some 13 years ago. I hope I'll get my hands on it again and if I do, I'll be more than happy to post it on ET.

by vladimir on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 07:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And here's more from: http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/carr/carr.html

GERMANY AND CROATIA: RESURRECTION OF THE "PURE" CROATIAN NATION STATE

Reliable intelligence sources claimed in 1990, that in 1988 Mr. Tudjman paid a secret visit to the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and met with Chancellor Kohl and other senior Government Ministers. It was said that the aim of the visit was to formulate a joint policy to break-up Yugoslavia, leading to the re-creation of a new independent State of Croatia with international borders in the form originally set up by the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, in 1941. At a secret meeting in Bonn, the German Government pledged its political, financial, and covert military support for Croatia's secession from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the intelligence source claimed such an action fitted neatly into Germany's strategic objectives in respect of the Balkans, which included bringing Roman Catholic Croatia and Slovenia within the German economic zone, gaining direct access to the Adriatic and Mediterranean, and securing a favored nation status with the oil and gas producing Arab states. The latter to be enhanced by recognizing Bosnia-Herzegovina as a predominantly Muslim nation state, an entrée to modern Europe for Islam along a traditional path from Turkey via Albania and the Serbian areas of Kosovo and the Sandzak occupied by Muslim majorities.

In the period leading up to Croatian secession there were signs that indicated the re-emergence of the historical axis previously seen in the days of the Holy Roman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Third Reich. There is no "conspiracy theory" in this: merely the reappearance of a geopolitical pattern.

It was a $2 billion interest free loan for 10 years. Not a $10 billion loan for 20 years.

Evidence of the axis in action occurred on October 4, 1990, when, even though still a part of Yugoslavia, Croatia was covertly provided with a US$2-Billion interest free loan, repayable in full after 10 years and a day. The loan was provided by the Ordre Souverain of Militaire de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem, Chevaliers-Hospitaliers de Malte. This ancient Order of Roman Catholic Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem was based in Malta during the Christian Crusades against the Islamic forces in Jerusalem. Today, the headquarters building of the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem is located at 61 Via Nizza in Rome from where these modern Catholic Knights wield the influential power of high finance. There is a known strong link between the headquarters in Rome and Germany, with reports indicating the organization is even directed by German nationals. Ostensibly the loan was to fund priority civil engineering projects with a statement of conditions that the loan should not be used to fund military projects. However, well-placed sources said the loan freed-up other finances earmarked for civil projects, thus enabling the money to be redirected to equip armaments factories and to purchase weapons. The same source said that despite the "no funding of military projects' condition, a significant percentage of the US$2-billion loan was misused on armaments. Signatories to the contract on behalf of the Croats were Vice President Dr. Mate Babic and Madamme Maksa Zeleu Mirjana, Counseler at the Ministry of Finance authorized to act on behalf of the Minister of Finance.

This US$2-Billion loan has never appeared in any Croatian Government financial statement. When Waterman Associates, on behalf of the Croatian Embassy in Washington D.C., sent out a press release in 1994 purporting to show a very low amount of foreign debt/loan, I challenged their figures, mentioning the US$2-Billion loan from the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem. The embassy said they had no knowledge of the loan, so I offered to send them a complete copy of the "Object du Financement". My offer was declined as they said such a document did not exist.

It should be remembered, that this loan was made to Croatia prior to secession. At time when Croatia was still a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and obliged under the Federal Constitution to disclose any such transactions.

And German arming of Croatia began as early as 1989.

The reunification of the two Germanies and modernization of the East German armed forces, made available a substantial pool of weapons and military instructors for arming and training of a Croatian militia. During late 1989, and throughout 1990, arms flowed from Germany to Croatia to equip militia units. After HDZ party (Croatian Democratic Union) won control of Sabor in the May 30, 1990, multi-party elections, the newly elected President Tudjman formed a National Guard Corps (ZNG). In effect, the ZNG was not a "national" force in the accepted meaning of the word, rather it was the ultra-nationalist, neo-Ustashi military wing of Tudjman's HDZ political party, in the same way that the "Brownshirts" of the 1930's acted as the vanguard enforcement wing of Hitler's National Party.

It has been asked why did Yugoslav Government in Belgrade not prevent the formation of the ZNG. The answer is quite simple. At the time, all the senior positions in the federal internal security organizations, and many senior posts in the General Staff of the JNA, were held by the Croats. For instance, Croatia's first Minister of Defence, Martin Spegelj, was a senior general in the Yugoslav Armed Forces at the time of secession.

With the full support of Germany, and against the wishes of other members of the EC, the HDZ ruling party declared Croatian sovereignty in the Sabor on December 22, 1990, despite strong objections raised by the opposition parties.

Shortly after the declaration, President Tujman introduced a new Croatian constitution which defined Croatia as the national state of the Croatian people and others, pointedly relegating the Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and Muslims to second class status. This was an exact repeat of what had happened in 1941 when nazi Germany invaded Yugoslavia and set up Croatia as the national state of the Croatian people and others. After the HDZ dominated Government passed the new constitution, discrimination against the Serbs began immediately. Serbs lost government jobs in the civil service, police, local authorities etc...they were evicted for their homes, many lost the ownership of their own businesses, and Serb newspapers were closed down etc. A special property tax applicable only to Serbs was introduced, and Croatian militia openly looted and closed down shops selling expensive products such as jewelry. These measures clearly indicated to the Serbs living within the administrative borders of Croatia that they must leave the land where they had lived for three centuries, or face the consequences of staying.

One of the most sinister changes was that every identified Serb in Croatia was issued with a new identity card which incorporated the figure 3 as the eight figure in the identity number. The figure 3 thus became the Croatian equivalent for Serbs as nazi Germany's Star of David was for all Jews residing in countries dominated by Germany. When the time came for ethnic cleansing to start, the figure 3 would ensure no Serb would escape.

by vladimir on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 03:16:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was living there on the military frontline. In '91 as you say yourself, Croatian army still was not formed. We lived in a little town that was connected to the Serbian village where from a distance of 500m only where shooting on us with mortars while in town there was nobody to defend it. Then, some neighbours united, took the locomotive that was close to our buildings and did some home made explosive sending the locomotive to the border between the town and Serbian village and detonating it there because there were gas installations that then provoked mass explosion that scared to death those who were there so they left running to the other end of the village and left the mortar. The whole idea of the action is to capture that mortar that they did, bringing it to town and trying to shoot from it. So then people got angry because they were hiding with it among the people and made them go outside to the fields. There they took the truck moving it along the road and shooting from it every now and then so on the other side it would appear that there are more weapons in various places. Well, if this is what I saw in late '91 with my own eyes in the region of the heaviest shooting at that time, where were those German weapons Vladimir is talking about?!
by SteelLady on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 05:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fair enough, that is a possible interpretation. Tough it is geared towards large-scale violence - bombing, artillery, WMDs, starvation - where you have problem discriminating the violence.

If on the other hand the attacker has mostly infantry, local population on the attackers side is an asset as they know terrain, hide-outs etc. And in an ethnic conflict where both parties speak the same language and look the same, local knowledge is essential in determining who is in the desired cathegory and who is not. Of course, you can argue that anyone who does not to as they are told are the enemy in one way or the other.

I have not enough data to form a real opinion on the case here myself, so I'll let you argue which case this is.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 08:22:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Tough it is geared towards large-scale violence - bombing, artillery, WMDs, starvation - where you have problem discriminating the violence.
Well, there was a large number of "internally displaced people" fleeing from Slavonia and Krajina, either from the areas forming the RSK or from the frontline areas still held by Croatia. But part of this might have been just part of the "general mobilization" in the Autumn of 1991.

Similarly, in the days preceding Operation Storm in 1995, the authorities of the RSK initiated a mandatory evacuation of the civilian population, resulting in a wave of refugees into Bosnia.

Now, in both cases a large part of the flow of refugees/internally displaced is an "evacuation towards the rearguard" rather than being driven out at gunpoint, but the distinction is not very useful. The flow of refugees is the same and the cause of the flow is the general condition of fighting.

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 Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 08:34:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What does add up is why this piece of propaganda is essential for Croatia: because it justifies the expulsion of 300 000 people from a land... that had just been colonised by Serb invaders.
by vladimir on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 03:26:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since Vladimir mentioned the loss of personal land and property by Serbian side, referring I suppose to those who fled from the territory of Krajina, I am not sure if he is aware that, this year Croatian government will buy 2144 flats for Serbs who want to return to Croatia that finishes the number of 8400 that were bought till now. The state have land registers of people who owned the houses and flats or who had 'stanarsko pravo' - the right to rent flats at very low prices so all of those who had their rights before and want to return will get their flats. Now the question is, if so many families returned, they obviously do not feel threatened. But where are those so many that are missing to complete Vladimir's statistics and are not willing to return offered new flats? (I have to say that we are in crisis and that people protest because Serbs have priority for flats because one of conditions Croatia signed to enter EU is 'peaceful reintegration'. That sometimes means that Croats who are left without their flats have to wait and also now the government will not have the money for paying salaries and pensions)
by SteelLady on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 06:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why did over 600 000 Serbs flee their homes to become refugees in Serbia?
Can you break those 600,000 down by republic of procedence and year of migration? For instance, how many arrived from Croatia in 1990/1 and in how many in 1995?

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 Wed Mar 18th, 2009 at 08:00:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That might be available in UNHCR data. I'll give it a search.
by vladimir on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 at 03:08:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What you've done is shown that Serbs are convicted more often than you'd expect in random experiments.

No he hasn't. That's a statistical mirage, because he arbitrarily classifies 7 of the Serbian suspects as being related to Kosova (rather than, say, split them evenly among the three wars, or split them among the three wars in proportion to the number of civilian casualties, both of which would have been more appropriate).

To understand why this is misleading, consider the outcome if I placed those seven indictees in Bosnia instead of Kosova: Then the vanilla average (which remains an inappropriate measure), goes from 3 per mille to 2.4 per mille. Purely from arbitrarily designating the 7 Serbian indictees for which there is too little information in the indictments to tell which wars they were indicted over.

And then he proceeds to happily make a vanilla average out of ratios that are up to a full order of magnitude different in both numerator and denominator. You're not allowed to do that. When you divide a very small number by another very small number, you get a higher uncertainty on your ratio than when you divide a very big number by another very big number. One or two wrongfully indicted Serbs from the Croatian war - or one or two hundred civilians miscounted - would count far more towards the ratio than a similar number for Bosnia.

So the three ratios cannot be given equal weight. You avoid all these problems by using a weighted average. But of course, the "signal" goes away when you do that...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:37:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:
he arbitrarily classifies 7 of the Serbian suspects as being related to Kosova
The classification needn't be arbitrary. In wikipedia's List of indictees of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia each indictee is assigned an ethnic group and an incident.

One thing that Vladimir does wrong is compare Indictees to Convictions, implying that those not convicted have been acquitted. This is not the case. The proper comparison would be the ratio of convictions to acquittals/case-dismissals as there are a number of cases which are ongoing, have been transferred to national jurisdiction, were never concluded because the indictee died, or in which the indictee is at large. Vladimir posted the full stats
here (these do not distinguish between the different wars or regions, only ethnic groups):

Stats from ICTY (none / 0) Here they are



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 Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:50:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The 7 didn't have a classification... it would have required hours of sifting through documents to find them.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:55:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then you can't ascribe them to Kosova, especially given that Kosova is the conflict with the smallest number of indictees and arbitrarily assigning 7 Serbs to it biases the data more than, say, assigning the 7 to Krajina or Republika Srpska.

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 Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:58:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another usegul comparison would be between indictees and population. Serbs were the largest ethnic group in the former Yugoslavia by a factor of nearly 2. See the table on Ethnic composition of Yugoslavia in 1981 in Wikipedia's Demographics of SFR Yugoslavia. A log-log regression of indictees vs. population might be appropriate in this case, too.

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 Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:56:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've delved into their documents. I agree, it's an unorganized mess. A horror-show for scholars.

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:59:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, then that's kosher.

The vanilla averages instead of weighted averages is still nonsense, though.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 05:58:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - A Statistical Analysis of the ICTY's bias.
For 7 Serbs (like Slobodan Milosevic) and others (mostly members of the FRY government or army and navy) who were not accused of a specific war crime in Bosnia or Croatia, I associated their indictment with events in Kosovo.
Who are the 7?

Milosevic is mentioned as part of a "Joint Criminal Enterprise" with Seselj, who was indicted for events in Croatia. You can't just throw Milosevic into the Kosovo pot to inflate the ratio of Serbs to Albanians indicted for Kosovo.

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 Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:46:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dragoljub Ojdanic
Charges of war crimes, deportation and forcible transfer, murder and persecution

Nebojša Pavkovic
Charges of war crimes, deportation and forcible transfer, murder and persecution.

Nikola Šainovic
Charges of war crimes, deportation and forcible transfer, murder and persecution.

Sreten Lukic
Command authority for crimes against humanity in Kosovo

Vladimir Lazarevic
Charges of war crimes, deportation and forcible transfer, murder and persecution.

Milan Simic
No information

by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:52:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Google is your friend.

BBC News | EUROPE | Profile: Dragoljub Ojdanic

During 1999, when the Yugoslav army and police committed atrocities against Kosovo Albanians, Colonel General Dragoljub Ojdanic held the position of the Yugoslav Army's chief of staff.

Nebojša Pavković - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nebojša Pavković (Serbian Cyrillic: Небојша Павковић; born in the village of Senjski Rudnik near Ćuprija on April 10, 1946) was former Chief of the General Staff of FRY. In 2009, he was convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) of committing crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Kosovo War.

BBC News | EUROPE | Profile: Nikola Sainovic

In May 1999, the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague indicted Nikola Sainovic for war crimes committed in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999.

Trial Watch : Sreten Lukic

The original indictment alleges that Sreten Lukic as well as Vladimir Lazarevic, Vlastimir Djordjevic and Nebojsa Pavkovic (see "related cases"), planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in preparing certain crimes. According to the indictment Lukic was part of a joint criminal enterprise which had the aim, in addition to other objectives, to expel a major part of the Kosovo Albanian civilians from the province in which they were living in order to maintain this province under Serb control. This joint criminal enterprise reportedly came into being, at the latest, in October 1998 and continued until 20 June 1999.

Trial Watch : Vladimir Lazarevic

The original indictment alleges that Vladimir Lazarevic as well as Vlastimir Djordjevic Nebojsa Pavkovic and Sreten Lukic (see "Related Cases"), planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in preparing certain crimes. According to the indictment Lazarevic was part of a joint criminal enterprise which had the aim, in addition to other objectives, to expel a major part of the Kosovo Albanian civilians from the province in which they were living in order to maintain this province under Serb control. This joint criminal enterprise reportedly came into being, at the latest, in October 1998 and continued until 20 June 1999.

Sentencing Judgement in the case "The Prosecutor v. Milan Simic"Accused Convicted to 5 years Imprisonment

The accused, Milan Simic, a 42 year-old Bosnian Serb, was first indicted by the Prosecutor of the Tribunal together with Blagoje Simic, Simo Zaric, Miroslav Tadic, Stevan Todorovic and Slobodan Miljkovic for crimes alleged to have occurred in the area of Bosanski Samac in north-western Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992.


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 Mar 16th, 2009 at 07:08:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you.
So I was right for 6 out of 7 of them.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 07:18:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But you were wrong that that
it would have required hours of sifting through documents to find them


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 Mar 16th, 2009 at 08:06:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as I read it it would have required hours of sifting through documents to find them for vladimir which he is uniqely positioned to judge.

So, one out of seven was misplaced. Does it change anything.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 08:12:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Changes nothing.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 08:22:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, for some unknown reason, Google stopped working on my machine. Each request takes 15-30 seconds to display, so I have no choice but to use Yahoo search which is not nearly as good.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 08:15:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Try Cuil

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 08:22:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So Jake, the 6 of the 7 were classified correctly. It's not a mirage.
by vladimir on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 04:00:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Read the entire comment that you reply to. Specifically:

And then he proceeds to happily make a vanilla average out of ratios that are up to a full order of magnitude different in both numerator and denominator. You're not allowed to do that. When you divide a very small number by another very small number, you get a higher uncertainty on your ratio than when you divide a very big number by another very big number. One or two wrongfully indicted Serbs from the Croatian war - or one or two hundred civilians miscounted - would count far more towards the ratio than a similar number for Bosnia.

So the three ratios cannot be given equal weight. You avoid all these problems by using a weighted average. But of course, the "signal" goes away when you do that...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 04:58:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: