babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home

This topic has been transferred to this forum: the rest of the world.  
next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » This just in: Slobodan Milosevic still dead

   
Author Topic: This just in: Slobodan Milosevic still dead
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 18 March 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The earlier thread is getting long and will likely be closed soon.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 18 March 2006 10:49 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thousands gather to mourn Milosevic

quote:
BELGRADE, Serbia-Montenegro - Tens of thousands of mourners packed a square in front of Belgrade's federal parliament building Saturday to bid a final farewell to Slobodan Milosevic, who died while on U.N. trial for some of Europe's worst atrocities since World War II.

More than 50,000 people — many clutching photographs of the late Serbian leader and shouting "Slobo! Slobo!" — gathered around a large, red-carpeted outdoor stage where Milosevic's flag-draped coffin lay on a bier covered in a burgundy cloth.

As dozens of helmeted riot police stood guard, a hush fell over the crowd as the farewell ceremony began with a minute of silence.

Although authorities had refused to approve an official ceremony, Saturday's farewell — organized by Milosevic's Socialist Party — had many of the trappings of a state funeral, from the venue to the speeches by top Socialist leaders.



From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 18 March 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Nice to see that Ramsey Clark was able to take a time-out from defending the 'Butcher of Baghdad' to show up for the occasion:

quote:
"History will prove that Slobodan Milosevic was right," Clark said, drawing cheers in a eulogy that savaged the West for its "determination to dismember Yugoslavia."

I guess we can look forward to Ramsey Clark showing up north of the border to fight the 'dismemberment of Canada' should Quebec ever decide to secede from the Canadian federation.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 March 2006 01:58 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:
Nice to see that Ramsey Clark was able to take a time-out from defending the 'Butcher of Baghdad' to show up for the occasion:

I guess we can look forward to Ramsey Clark showing up north of the border to fight the 'dismemberment of Canada' should Quebec ever decide to secede from the Canadian federation.


I know a defence lawyer who is a lot like Ramsey Clark. He defends those -- good and evil -- who can find no one else to defend them.

I have tremendous respect for Ramsey Clark, dating from the early 70s. A U.S. attorney general under Lyndon Johnson who joined the anti-war movement (in the Nixon years), while the war was still ongoing... Some of us thought the revolution must be at hand. He was a man of great courage and integrity.

Although it's not necessarily that friendly, the Wikipedia entry isn't a bad starting point to find out about this remarkable individual.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 18 March 2006 02:24 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Lawyers who defend the likes of Paul Bernardo deserve our respect and even admiration.

Lawyers like Ramsey Clark and Doug Christie who subscribe to the views of those who they purport to defend do not.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 18 March 2006 02:29 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:
Lawyers who defend the likes of Paul Bernardo deserve our respect and even admiration.

Lawyers like Ramsey Clark and Doug Christie who subscribe to the views of those who they purport to defend do not.


So in other words you admire lawyers whose ideas you agree with, but not those lawyers whose ideas you despise.

Why would you restrict such sentiments to lawyers? Doesn't that apply to everyone generally?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 March 2006 02:43 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:

Lawyers like Ramsey Clark and Doug Christie who subscribe to the views of those who they purport to defend do not.

I can't actually believe you put those two names in the same sentence, but I will not engage in this discussion any further.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 18 March 2006 03:12 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
In reply to M. Spector, here's the distinction.

I respect John Rosen, the lawyer with the thankless task of defending Paul Bernardo. But this does not mean that Rosen agrees with either Bernardo's views or approves of his actions. I am certain that the very opposite is true.

I do not respect Ramsey Clark or Doug Christie who not only subscribe to the worldviews but also rationalize and/or justify the actions of war criminals/mass murderers and racists, respectively.

[ 18 March 2006: Message edited by: John K ]


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 19 March 2006 12:48 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not a distinction at all.

Your respect for John Rosen has nothing to do with his "thankless task". Your respect for John Rosen would vanish in an instant if you thought he agreed with Bernardo or approved of his actions.

At the same time, you have no resepct for Ramsay Clark or Doug Christie, whose tasks are every bit as thankless: because ultimately the respect/no respect issue for you is based on their personal beliefs.

So I say again, you admire lawyers whose ideas you agree with, but not those lawyers whose ideas you despise. The fact that they may take on thankless tasks by defending unpopular or hated defendants is a complete red herring.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
SteelCityGuy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6293

posted 19 March 2006 08:23 AM      Profile for SteelCityGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
unionist - why should it be a surprise to you.

Many of us are aghast that someone would support a bloody thirsty tyrannt.


quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I can't actually believe you put those two names in the same sentence, but I will not engage in this discussion any further.



From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 09:25 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SteelCityGuy:
unionist - why should it be a surprise to you.

Many of us are aghast that someone would support a bloody thirsty tyrannt.


Because you so obviously take "sides" in an ethnic dispute re-invented and stoked up after Tito's death, your assessment is not persuasive. You call the "other guy" bloodthirsty, you defend "your guy" as not so bad. You want one punished and the other pardoned.

You believe Croats are superior to Serbs in many ways. You call it "moral relativism" to see the faults of both and not to take sides. When I said in an earlier post that each should criticize "their own" before criticizing "the other", you replied:

quote:
As for finding fault in the other - hmmm - you seem to be finding fault with all of us. Could I then assume that you find your culture superior than that of Croats and Serbs?

That made me sad.

All this ethnic rivalry, all this widening of ancient wounds, between two peoples that speak the same language (just write it differently - you should work to change that by the way) and until recently lived together in peace, inter-married, and formed a single civil society.

Forgive me for saying this, but attitudes like yours lead to eternal cycles of feuds, revenge, and warfare. And, of course, to fertile soil for foreign powers to exploit the divisions among the people to their own selfish ends.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 19 March 2006 12:34 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Posted by M.Spector:
quote:
Your respect for John Rosen has nothing to do with his "thankless task". Your respect for John Rosen would vanish in an instant if you thought he agreed with Bernardo or approved of his actions.

Rosen took on this thankless task after Bernardo had compromised his original counsel Ken Murray. If I recall correctly, Rosen himself had teenage daughters at the time he defended Bernardo. You're right. I would lose all respect for Rosen if he agreed with Bernardo or approved of his actions. But I am absolutely certain that this is not the case.

Contrast this with Ramsey Clark. Even tyrants deserve the best possible defense in a criminal proceeding. But, Clark's quoted remarks yesterday at Milosevic's funeral proves to me that he either agrees with Milosevic or approves of his actions. This I do not respect.

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: John K ]


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 19 March 2006 06:02 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:
[QB]In reply to M. Spector, here's the distinction.

I respect John Rosen, the lawyer with the thankless task of defending Paul Bernardo. But this does not mean that Rosen agrees with either Bernardo's views or approves of his actions. I am certain that the very opposite is true.


So basically, you like your lawyers to be top-notch liars and dissaprove of those who might believe their clients to be innocent of the charges against them before the trial is completed. How do we know which is which in the case of Ramsay Clark?

Sounds to me that you've already decided Milosevic's guilt in the absence of a verdict by the ICTY. Why bother with the trial, then? Why not just line 'em up and shoot 'em on suspicion?

In both your examples, you assume the outcome of the trial. In both, the notion of innocence before guilt is proven is tossed out the window.

I mean, doesn't even that rare defense lawyer with a guilty client have to believe in some small way that the case against their client is not up to snuff? Either way, the line between zealous defense and advocacy is not always as clear as you want it to be.

From your point of view, the so-called 'disinterested' process is given a shot in the arm, despite the fact that it can simply deteriorate into theatre: a word game to determine the content of "reasonable doubt". Rosen was - by your suggestion - aware of Bernardo's guilt but sought to prove his innocence - or at least to block a guilty verdict anyway. This you have determined to be noble, whereas Clark who (again by your suggestion) honestly believes that the facts tell a different story from the prosecution is an ignoble bastard.

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 19 March 2006 06:11 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:
You're right. I would lose all respect for Rosen if he agreed with Bernardo or approved of his actions. But I am absolutely certain that this is not the case.

Contrast this with Ramsey Clark. Even tyrants deserve the best possible defense in a criminal proceeding. But, Clark's quoted remarks yesterday at Milosevic's funeral proves to me that he either agrees with Milosevic or approves of his actions. This I do not respect.


Your reply confirms my original observation: you admire lawyers whose ideas you agree with, but not those lawyers whose ideas you despise.

It has nothing to do with their willingness to perform a thankless task.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 19 March 2006 07:21 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
So basically, you like your lawyers to be top-notch liars and dissaprove of those who might believe their clients to be innocent of the charges against them before the trial is completed. How do we know which is which in the case of Ramsay Clark?

No, he's only saying that lawyers should be strong advocates for their clients regardless of their own personal beliefs. Thats not sleezy, thats what theyre paid for and much prefereable to some of the alternatives. Ramsay looks like he's going a ways beyond that, and not for the first time either.

Spector:
Originally posted by John K:
You're right. I would lose all respect for Rosen if he agreed with Bernardo or approved of his actions. But I am absolutely certain that this is not the case.

Contrast this with Ramsey Clark. Even tyrants deserve the best possible defense in a criminal proceeding. But, Clark's quoted remarks yesterday at Milosevic's funeral proves to me that he either agrees with Milosevic or approves of his actions. This I do not respect.

Your reply confirms my original observation: you admire lawyers whose ideas you agree with, but not those lawyers whose ideas you despise.

It has nothing to do with their willingness to perform a thankless task.

Your arguments make no sense Spector, think about what youre writing a bit more before you start equating the legal professions ethical credo's again with those who defend mass murder itself. Theres a big difference whether Your particular little belief system allows for it or not.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 19 March 2006 07:39 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And since noone else has seen fit to comment on this unsourced contribution, I wonder if anyone would like to place bets on whether this conveniently timed ditty is in any way genuine. I'd give five to one it's not even from Slobo, and ten to one that he wasn't poisoned by the court -though might be as hard to disprove as it is to prove. Opening bid of a dollar that this 'letter' doesn't even make it as far as a Serbian speaking hand writing expert.


The text of a handwritten letter dated March 8, 2006, written by Slobodan Milosevic to Russia asking for its help. It was provided in an English translation by his lawyer Zdenko Tomanovic:

To the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

With my acknowledgment for the solidarity and understanding which you expressed by accepting to receive me to come for medical treatment and by giving guarantees, I would like to inform you about the following:

I think that the persistence, with which the medical treatment in Russia wasdenied, in the first place is motivated by the fear that through careful examination it would be discovered, that there were active, willful steps taken, to destroy my health, throughout the proceedings of the trial, which could not be hidden from Russian specialists.

In order to verify my allegations, I'm presenting you a simple example which you can find in the attachment. This document, which I received on March 7, shows that on January 12th (i.e. two months ago), an extremely strong drug was found in my blood, which is used, as they themselves say, for the treatment of tuberculosis and leprosy, although I never used any kind of
antibiotic during this 5 years that I'm in their prison.

Throughout this whole period, neither have I had any kind of infectious illness (apart from flu).

Also the fact that doctors needed 2 months (to report to me), can't have any other explanation than we are facing manipulation. In any case, those who foist on me a drug against leprosy surely can't treat my illness; likewise those from which I defended my country in times of war and who have an interest to silence me.

Dear Sirs, it is known to you that Russian physicians, who rank among the most respected physicians in the world, came to the conclusion that the examination and treatment of the vascular problems in my head are inevitable and urgent. I know very well that this is true, as I feel very bad.

I'm addressing you in expectation that you help me defend my health from the criminal activities in this institution, working under the sign of the U.N., and that I be enabled as soon as possible to get adequate treatment in your hospital, in whose physicians, as well as in Russia, I have absolute confidence.

Yours sincerely,

Slobodan Milosevic

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 19 March 2006 09:14 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaBrain:
Your arguments make no sense Spector, think about what youre writing a bit more before you start equating the legal professions ethical credo's again with those who defend mass murder itself. Theres a big difference whether Your particular little belief system allows for it or not.
Gosh. Here I thought I was simply making observations about John K's argument, and not even disagreeing with him, and it turns out I was actually making an argument equating legal ethics with supporting mass murder! Go figure.

I wasn't even talking about legal ethics; lawyers are under no ethical obligation to defend people they dislike, or people the public thinks are guilty, or people who are accused of horrible crimes. Many lawyers do so, however, out of a number of possible motives. They may think that the client is not guilty, despite what most people think. They may have no opinion at all about the client's guilt or innocence but believe that the client is entitled to a vigorous defence. They may be doing it solely for the money. They may be doing it for the publicity, and the possibility of boosting their own careers.

For whatever reason, John Rosen agreed to defend Paul Bernardo. And for whatever reason, Ramsay Clark agreed to join Milosevic's defence team. Both took on the task of defending an unpopular person (John K calls this a "thankless" task, though I suspect both defendants were very grateful). John K. says he has no respect for Clark because he appears to either agree with Milosevic or approve of his actions. And he says he would lose all respect for Rosen if he thought that Rosen approved of Bernardo's actions.

I simply made the observation that his decision to grant or withhold respect is based not on the defence of the unpopular defendant (since both men meet that criterion) but rather on the personal views of those lawyers. I didn't even say there was anything wrong with that. In fact, in my "particular little belief system" I don't think there is.

Maybe you're the one who should think a bit longer before putting words into other people's mouths.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 March 2006 03:12 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:
Nice to see that Ramsey Clark was able to take a time-out from defending the 'Butcher of Baghdad' to show up for the occasion:

I guess we can look forward to Ramsey Clark showing up north of the border to fight the 'dismemberment of Canada' should Quebec ever decide to secede from the Canadian federation.



That is very apropos comment. All one needs to do is to look into our own history to determine what measures federal governments normally institute to fight armed insurrectionists proposing to cede a province. Pierre elliot Trudeau thought it wise to declare martial law after a couple of kidnappings.

[ 20 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Richard MacKinnon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2150

posted 20 March 2006 02:03 PM      Profile for Richard MacKinnon   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'd give five to one it's not even from Slobo

Try googling milosovic letter and you'll find a number of sources including:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,,1729660,00.html

Some of my sources tended to be faster than your 'legitimate' ones.


From: Home of the Red Hill Concrete Expressway | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 20 March 2006 02:21 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
No, he's only saying that lawyers should be strong advocates for their clients regardless of their own personal beliefs. Thats not sleezy, thats what theyre paid for and much prefereable to some of the alternatives.

A distinction without a difference if I've ever seen one. I do find it interesting that in the search for "truth" (purportedly the desired result of our legal process) it is required - nay, desirable - to be an excellent liar. As though some fiction is necessary to draw out the elements of truth in the prosecution - or at least as much truth as is provable empirically or otherwise. I don't see anything remiss or "sleezy" in that. Of course, this also applies to prosecutors who may also employ lies and/or oversights to bolster their cases.

I reiterate my point that the line between a disinterested yet zealous defense and advocacy is not always that clear, just as the line between disinterested prosecution and zealous persecution is not always clear.

quote:
Ramsay looks like he's going a ways beyond that, and not for the first time either.

You're simply proving my point. Here you admonish Clark for "going a ways beyond" simply lying for his client and for actually believing that an alternative interpretation of the facts is the truth. Moreover, you reach this conclusion without the benefit of the trial having been concluded. In other words, Milosevic is already guilty, and Clark is guilty by association.

But therein lies a contradiction. You praise "disinterested" procedure as morally noble, and yet are willing to lay guilt on both Milosevic AND his lawyer despite the lack of a legal conclusion. Moreover, in lauding disinterested defense lawyering you give credence to the notion of assumed innocence and that the burden is on the prosecution to reveal the truth through positive assertions of their own case and negative refutations of the defense position. And yet in laying guilt on Milosevic and Clark without a legal decision you've devalued this process completely.

quote:
Your arguments make no sense Spector, think about what youre writing a bit more before you start equating the legal professions ethical credo's again with those who defend mass murder itself. Theres a big difference whether Your particular little belief system allows for it or not.

Doesn't the conclusion that Clark defends mass murder beg the question that the trial, with all it's necessary fictions, is supposed to answer? And what of the ethical credos of the legal profession? Since when do they prohibit vociferously advocating on behalf of a cause or a defendant when one believes in the truth of the position? In legal lingo, "disinterested" is usually a quality desired of judges and prosecutors, not defense lawyers.

The funniest thing is that you assume that Ramsay Clark actually believes his defense of Milosevic to be true in spite of your insistence that a disinterested defender protecting their client in spite of their alleged crimes. How do we know that he isn't just a great defense lawyer/liar by your own definition?

How do we tell the difference between a disinterested defense lawyer/liar par excellance and a committed advocate? We certainly can't use our assumption of the defendant's alleged guilt make our minds up for us as you have, can we?

In essence, how to tell the Devil's Advocate from the Devil Himself?

[ 20 March 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 20 March 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 March 2006 04:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think there has been any doubt that Ramsey Clarke's interest in the Milosovic case is political. He obviously does not believe that Milosovic was a "bloody tyrant." Certainly not that he was worse than any of his other Balkan peers, Tudjman et al. But that aside, a lawyer believing in their clients innocence, does not undermine the credibility of the defence they make of his client.

As such, simple slagging does nothing to undermine the case made by Clarke, and those being critical of it would be better of attacking the case, rather than engaging in what amounts to an ad hominem attack upon Clarke based on the principle of guilt by association, based upon a case that has not been proved in any court.

It should be noted, that even Carla Del Ponte admited last year that it was unlikely that they would be able to prove the all important genocide charge against Milosovic.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 20 March 2006 11:26 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaBrain:

Already into the childish name calling I see. I'm so glad I waited a day before coming back to look, see were into my favuorite subject of reading comprehension too.


quote:

Gosh. Here I thought I was simply making observations about John K's argument...

I know what you were saying, it's right there in black and white, and it was more than a simple "observation". If you read abit closer yourself you should be able to detect that I wasn't exactly accusing YOU of supporting mass murderers either, but rather attacking your supercilious little tautology, equating someone who defends unpopular figures like Nazi sympathers, because they feel it's their Duty or a matter of principle, and someone who defends them because they believe in the same thing. I thought John K was quite clear about that point, which is all I was trying to explain again to You. I'm really not interested in your particular world view, and if you happen to think poor old Milo was innocent thats a separate issue again and one I'm already weary of going over. You can believe whatever you like but before crying foul again you can learn to respect that Others may just see Milosevic as something more akin to a Paul Bernardo or Nazi and hence the lack of respect for a defending attorney who supports their Cause. Get it?

[QUOTE]
I wasn't even talking about legal ethics; lawyers are under no ethical obligation to defend people they dislike, or people the public thinks are guilty, or people who are accused of horrible crimes.


No shit Sherlock, how many episodes of Matlock did it take before you realized that defending Attornies don't Have to take a case they don't want to? That doesn't change the fact that many may in fact choose to defend someone they don't happen to believe innocent or worthy of much sympathy, but support them anyway as a matter of other principles. Or as a money making career move. If you still see that as no better than someone defending a Bernardo or a neo-Nazi (as was clearly stated again) because they TOO Believe in The "cause" then that too is your own problem. I BTW also believe that guys like Doug Christie should be allowed to practice law for whatever reasons they choose, but I see no reason why I should respect them for that or give a damn if their particular practice fails.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 20 March 2006 11:37 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Richard MacKinnon:

Try googling milosovic letter and you'll find a number of sources including:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,,1729660,00.html

Some of my sources tended to be faster than your 'legitimate' ones.


I probably read most of the same sources you do, thanks, but this OC remains just another unverified story. Other mainstream sources have already reported that there was no evidence of any of these drugs in his system. He has been a sick old man for sometime now, that much is known.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 20 March 2006 11:45 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
That is very apropos comment. All one needs to do is to look into our own history to determine what measures federal governments normally institute to fight armed insurrectionists proposing to cede a province. Pierre elliot Trudeau thought it wise to declare martial law after a couple of kidnappings.

Not just a couple kidnappings, but the murder of a senior government employee called Pierre Leporte, plus some bombings that could have killed innocent bystanders if they had carried on. Trudeau probably overeacted and layed the grounds for the PQ's later victory, but the differences are that he was roundly and openly criticised for invoking the War Measure Act at the time within our own press, and the ones responsible for the original crime are walking the streets again free rather than lying in a mass grave.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 March 2006 11:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is very funny.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 March 2006 11:51 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
He has been a sick old man for sometime now, that much is known.

How long has he been old?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 20 March 2006 11:54 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:

...the differences are that he was roundly and openly criticised for invoking the War Measure Act at the time within our own press...





Pardon me??? Not within the so-called "English-Candian" press, he wasn't.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 21 March 2006 12:09 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BLZB: "A distinction without a difference if I've ever seen one. I do find it interesting that in the search for "truth" (purportedly the desired result of our legal process) it is required - nay, desirable - to be an excellent liar. As though some fiction is necessary to draw out the elements of truth in the prosecution - or at least as much truth as is provable empirically or otherwise. I don't see anything remiss or "sleezy" in that. Of course, this also applies to prosecutors who may also employ lies and/or oversights to bolster their cases."

Ok, "sleezy" was me paraphrasing, if you prefer "liar" then we can go with that instead. Lawyer's don't Have to Lie either, they don't even need to know whether their client is guilty or not -if they suspect as much they might even advice them not to tell them so, so as not to compromise their position as an Officer of the Court. Even if they do lie though I still see a difference, as their advocacy can take any position they may choose in the future, good, bad or indifferent, but this is getting way too complicated already for a simple criticism of Spector's little assertion.

"I reiterate my point that the line between a disinterested yet zealous defense and advocacy is not always that clear, just as the line between disinterested prosecution and zealous persecution is not always clear. "

That maybe interesting philosphical angle but not one I'm interested in debating here either. Got enough on my plate as is, I don't need another debate over Milosevic with those who seem determined to defend him beyond the grave. The man's dead, I say let him burn. Others can dress in black for the next decade if they prefer.

Re whether Clark actually believes Milosevic was "innocent" or something noone here can really say, except that he Appears to do so, it Seems consistent with other statements he's made, but anything more is just more hypotheticals, or as lawyers would say in tv land, pure conjecture either way. One good thing about our court system is that advocates for Either side can spin any story they like, it's up to others to judge the evidence on its merits. WWe have no other way of knowing but Without a serious advocate for Both sides then we're in even more trouble. I think there's a point to that. Enough from me now, Spector can insult my intelligence again later, I'm done with him. You and Cueball can at least disagree on topic, that I honestly appreciate.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 21 March 2006 12:17 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's funny Cueball? Do you think Milosevic or any other old apparatchiks would have allowed someone as a fair a trial for such a thing as Canada did? Or are you implying that what Trudeau did was at all comparible?
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 21 March 2006 12:21 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

Pardon me??? Not within the so-called "English-Candian" press, he wasn't.


Yes, the English press tended to side with him but it wasn't unanimous, there were critics too. More as the years went by. Enough from me for now.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 March 2006 12:37 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
What's funny Cueball? Do you think Milosevic or any other old apparatchiks would have allowed someone as a fair a trial for such a thing as Canada did? Or are you implying that what Trudeau did was at all comparible?


I think it is hilarious that you would justify the war measures act over a killing, 2 kidnappings, and a few bombs. Then turn around and chastise Milosovic and the JNA for trying to repress an outright rebellion. Soldiers being shot in the streets etc.

Wild!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 21 March 2006 01:15 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did I say what Trudeau did was justified? No, I said the comparisons weren't exactly "apropos". Whats "wild" to me is that you seem to think that Quebec has more valid reasons to leave Canada than the ex-Yugoslav republics did. But since we're back to the Serbians being the more or less victims again and Croats etc being the nasty instigators, I can see this is another waste of time. Least you didn't actually try to argue that our flawed system of justice is somehow worse than any of the old communist regimes, that's something. Ciao Ciao.

Edited for typos.

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 March 2006 01:23 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is wild because no one ever suggests that Trudeau's implimentation of the War Measures Act was outside of his right within the mandate of sovereign nations.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
SteelCityGuy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6293

posted 21 March 2006 01:06 PM      Profile for SteelCityGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unionist

I've been away from this site for a few days so my response comes a few days late.

Really, how dare you accuse me of hatred towards an entire ethnic group?

I have relatives living in Belgrade.

But then again, it's easier to attack someone with baseless allegations than with actual proof.

And if you actually READ what I wrote, you would understand my criticisms of Tudjman.

That I find Milosevic more responsible of crimes in the recent wars in former Yug does not make me a Croat apologist - it reflects a reality that is shared by most observers of the recent conflicts. Such observations do not exonerate Tudjman but they reflect historical reality.

Thanks for lowering the debate - it really shows your lack of intellect and your inability to respond to what I have posted.

quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

That made me sad.

All this ethnic rivalry, all this widening of ancient wounds, between two peoples that speak the same language (just write it differently - you should work to change that by the way) and until recently lived together in peace, inter-married, and formed a single civil society.

Forgive me for saying this, but attitudes like yours lead to eternal cycles of feuds, revenge, and warfare. And, of course, to fertile soil for foreign powers to exploit the divisions among the people to their own selfish ends.



From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 March 2006 01:42 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SteelCityGuy:
Unionist

Really, how dare you accuse me of hatred towards an entire ethnic group?

[...]

Thanks for lowering the debate - it really shows your lack of intellect and your inability to respond to what I have posted.


I did not accuse you of hatred towards anyone. I said attitudes like yours (and those of the Serb apologists and Bosnian apologists and Slovene apologists...) perpetuate divisions. Here's what I mean:

quote:
I feel sorry for anyone (including Serbs) who were victimized by this war but it started with Milosevic ...

quote:
But much was done in the early days to try to reassure Serbs such as inviting Serbian leaders, including the Serbian Orthodox Bishop of Zagreb-Ljubljana to the opening of parliament in 1990. They refused to attend.

quote:
And yes, if I were a Serb I would have had apprehensions living in an independent Croatian state. But you don't counter apprehensions by refusing to negotiate, by refusing to sit in parliament, and instead signing up to be Milosevic's mouth piece.

quote:
Most Croats, Serbs, etc are decent people. But, from an objective point of view, more warcrimes were committed by people of Serbian ethnic origin than Croat or Muslim.

I have taken all of these "out of context". But do you think statements like this heal wounds?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
SteelCityGuy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6293

posted 21 March 2006 02:54 PM      Profile for SteelCityGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unionist:

Thanks for the clarification and your admission that you took statements out of context.

However, my views have nothing to do with being a Croat apologist or whatever (in fact, Croatian nationalists find problems with my viewpoint).

As for your point of moving forward, we only do so when people acknowledge what occurred. Your position seems to suggest that we equate everyone together as equally guilty or else you forment divisions.

What you miss in my approach is that I don't fault "peoples"; rather I fault individuals, institutions or political parties. I leave the general public out of it.

For example, in 1986 the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences issued what many regard as inflammatory statements on Kosovo. Many argue that these statements helped frame a picture in the minds of ordinary Serbs that they were under attack in Kosovo, even though some of the stories of rape were very obviously fabricated.

In an objective review of the timeline of this war, this incident contributed much to the conditioning of people or causing people to become fearful.

When I review other events in history, such as WW2, I don't think I am formenting divisions when I state that there were more war criminals of German background than French.

Instead, I call a spade a spade.

Two additional points:

1) Yugoslavia was not a multi-ethnic paradise, as you suggest. Tito had thousands of people executed, the vast majority of whom were not fascists or nationalists. He ruled the country with an iron fist and did not tolerate any opposition. Unfortunately his approach focused an entire country through one person and when that person was gone, there was nothing left of substance in the country holding it together.

2) The peoples of Yugoslavia do not speak the same language. Even the two closet languages, Croatian and Serbian have thousands of words which are different with different rules of grammar, some words with different gender, etc. Most slavic languages are mutually intelligible and there are other languages in the world which are closer than Croatian and Serbian. Yet it appears only Croats and Serbs were consistently thrown into one language group even though their languages developed through different literary influences and cultural influences.

Do we ask aboriginals to stop talking about abuses committed against them in order to promote harmony? Should Jews stop speaking of the holocaust? Should gays and lesbians stop criticizing the aspects of Catholicism they argue is oppressive?

Harmony is a nice thing but I think that one can argue different viewpoints without degenerating into civil war.

Perhaps you should send me a PM, lest our discussions in a public forum become too long.


quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I have taken all of these "out of context". But do you think statements like this heal wounds?



From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 March 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SteelCityGuy:

When I review other events in history, such as WW2, I don't think I am formenting divisions when I state that there were more war criminals of German background than French.

If you made that statement in France, you might be accused of whitewashing the crimes of Vichy. And if you said "Ukrainian" instead of French, you might be accused by my (late) parents of whitewashing the crimes of the Ukrainian fascist organizations (like the "Gendarmerie") who were personally and directly involved in the murder of most of their families. There were Jews who collaborated in that murder as well.

So you see, Nazis are Nazis, war criminals are war criminals, and to focus on what ethnic or national background they come from detracts attention from their essence. It could signify something worse as well.

quote:
Do we ask aboriginals to stop talking about abuses committed against them in order to promote harmony? Should Jews stop speaking of the holocaust? Should gays and lesbians stop criticizing the aspects of Catholicism they argue is oppressive?

No to all three. But if the Jews say, "most of the Holocaust perpetrators were German", or aboriginals say, "most of the problems we have are with whites or Europeans", or if gays and lesbians suggest that one ethnic group is more homophobic than another -- they will lose my sympathy, my friend. Because they will be replacing one form of abuse by another.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
SteelCityGuy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6293

posted 21 March 2006 05:23 PM      Profile for SteelCityGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unionist

You talk about replacing "one abuse over another" and yet you said the following:

"Oh, and yes, I applauded the Brits over the Germans in WWII. Not because I like British ethnic traditions better than German."

Given your reluctance to see things in ethnic terms, you should have said "I applauded those who fought as allies against the nazis and those people who fought alongside the nazis".

But more importantly you have consistently whitewashed the crimes committed by Tito and his henchmen. Lepoglava, goli otok, mass murder in peacetime.

You have ignored the role of Tito in formenting the seeds of Yugoslavia's destruction.

The biggest myth of all is that Tito created a tolerant progressive multi-ethnic society.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
SteelCityGuy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6293

posted 21 March 2006 05:30 PM      Profile for SteelCityGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unionist, a little postscipt:

During ww2, an enlarged Germany was created which included most of Poland. Poles were eliminated in an effort to create living space for ethnic Germans.

I guess you could eliminate any reference to ethnic groups lest we cause divisions but then again eventually it would probably have to come out in the first place.

I firmly believe that Milosevic wanted to emerge as a strongman tito-style dictator of Yugoslavia through the vehicle of the communist party. At the time, the communist parties of Macedonia and BiH were largely pro-Serbian. All he needed was the support of the Kosovo and Vojvodina parties along with the Montenegrin parties. When he failed in this aim he retreated to the traditional line of Greater Serbian proponents: Karlobag, Karlovac, Virovitica.

In saying the above, yeah I mentioned "Greater Serbian proponents" because that's what they were. It's not all Serbs.

Just like "Greater Croatian proponents" speak of reclaiming Croatia to Zemun or the drina and Sandzak and Kotor.

It does not mean I condemn all members who happen to be the same ethnic group.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 March 2006 05:35 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SteelCityGuy:
You talk about replacing "one abuse over another" and yet you said the following:

"Oh, and yes, I applauded the Brits over the Germans in WWII. Not because I like British ethnic traditions better than German."

Given your reluctance to see things in ethnic terms, you should have said "I applauded those who fought as allies against the nazis and those people who fought alongside the nazis".


You are correct, SCG. Of course, that would have made it difficult to make my anti-ethnicist point, but you are quite right and I accept the criticism.

As for Tito, maybe you're right. The only reason I ever mentioned his name is that I thought Yugoslavia was and still is a good idea and it would be good if there were a leader or a movement that would try to overcome the inter-ethnic childish but deadly rivalries. Not with Tito's methods, I grant you.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
SteelCityGuy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6293

posted 21 March 2006 05:48 PM      Profile for SteelCityGuy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
True proponents of Yugoslavia such as Bishop Strossmayer envisioned a society of equals. Others such as Nikola Pasic envisioned Yugoslavia as a method to secure a larger Serbian state.

But why mourn Yugoslavia but not the demise of Austria-Hungary? AH was a even richer mixture of cultures, religions, ethnicities, languages than Yugoslavia.

I agree that a true democratic multi-ethnic state would have been nice but this never occurred.

I am happy that Yugoslavia is gone and wish that its demise is final.

I do hope that the successor states of ex Yug commit themselves to ethnic tolerance, minority rights, linguistic rights, cultural rights and I do hope that the successor states commit themselves to peaceful co-existance with their neighbours.

Perhaps these areas could use Istria and Vojvodina as examples: multi-ethnic societies which co-exist largely without mass expulsions or killings.


quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

You are correct, SCG. Of course, that would have made it difficult to make my anti-ethnicist point, but you are quite right and I accept the criticism.

As for Tito, maybe you're right. The only reason I ever mentioned his name is that I thought Yugoslavia was and still is a good idea and it would be good if there were a leader or a movement that would try to overcome the inter-ethnic childish but deadly rivalries. Not with Tito's methods, I grant you.



From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 23 March 2006 03:02 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I don't think there has been any doubt that Ramsey Clarke's interest in the Milosovic case is political. He obviously does not believe that Milosovic was a "bloody tyrant."

Quite so. Clark himself would probably not claim to be an objective selfless defender of those without access to lawyers, so I hope that can be put to rest.

quote:
As such, simple slagging does nothing to undermine the case made by Clarke, and those being critical of it would be better of attacking the case, rather than engaging in what amounts to an ad hominem attack upon Clarke based on the principle of guilt by association, based upon a case that has not been proved in any court.

If attacks on Ramsay Clark for who he is and what he believes are out of bounds, are attacks on George Bush for the same reason also out of bounds? Clark is the mirror image of Bush: instead of automoatically assuming America is aximnatiucally god, he assumes its enemies are axiomatically good. And that's a statement grounded in reading Ramsay Clark.

Aside: anyone see the TV images of Serbs in Belgrade with balloons on the day of Slobo's funeral, protesting against his legacy so that the only image from Serbia that day wouyld not be one of respect for Milosevic? Serbia's changing fast.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 23 March 2006 03:19 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
The consolation is that one of the Balkan warlords responsible, as commander in chief of Serb military and paramilitary forces, for acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, massacres of prisoners and hospital patients, concentration and mass rape camps, torture, and disappearances of dissidents, died in jail.

It would have been nicer had he died in jail, let's say in the 16th year of a 30 year jail sentence. But the butcher did nonetheless die in a jail cell.

Not a perfect outcome, but not entirely bad either.

He was where he belonged.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 March 2006 06:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Carla Del Ponte said last year that she did not think she would be able to prove the genocide charge. As such your allegation of genocide, given that even the prosecutor doubted the charge would stick after years of court proceedings, is highly speculative, to the point of being purely fanciful.

Now on to reality:

quote:
Originally posted by swallow:

If attacks on Ramsay Clark for who he is and what he believes are out of bounds, are attacks on George Bush for the same reason also out of bounds? Clark is the mirror image of Bush: instead of automoatically assuming America is aximnatiucally god, he assumes its enemies are axiomatically good. And that's a statement grounded in reading Ramsay Clark.


"Aximnatiucally." I see you are using the same spell checker I use. lol.

I disagree. I don't think you will find me asserting that Bush and or Clarke axiomatically good or evil. All positions have to be examined carefully.

I don't think I have ever asserted that the intervention in the Balkans as conceived of by western "human rights" activists was evil in intent, only that is was misguided and naive to assume the alliances they forged were not acting as camoflage for far less savory interests.

This does not mean that one must automatically reject their claims and their arguements out of hand, simply because they make bad political choices. Clarke, may also be operating on a similar basis.

[Question]Why are you posing the dichotomy as being bewteen Clarke and Bush, when it is rightly Clarke and Clinton?[/Question]

[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 23 March 2006 06:39 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh you know, Bush as symbol of the rest of it, rally round the flag and don't ever dare to think, cuz A-Mer-kah is always right. Like Ramsay Clark, rally against the flag and don't think, because America is automatically wrong and its enemies therefore right. Both positions stem from pre-conceived notions about American exceptionalism.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 March 2006 06:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure, but is that the way we have to look at it?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 March 2006 06:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think asserting that dualism as the only operative analytic function is the essence of the same exceptionalism.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 March 2006 08:41 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

I disagree. I don't think you will find me asserting that Bush and or Clarke axiomatically good or evil. All positions have to be examined carefully.


.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 March 2006 10:06 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moving this to the rest of the world.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca