International terror

War Crimes Tribunal: Something ala George Orwell's 'Animal Farm'
By Carla Berg [7 May 2001]
Ms. Berg is a Graduate Student in Political Science and International Law

I am signing the "Free Milosevic!" petition because of the violations of international law by which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (the ICTY or 'War Crimes Tribunal') was established.
The U.N. Charter provides the Security Council (SC) with authority to take measures in the event of acts of aggression, threats to the peace or breaches of the peace. A primary problem is that given the SC's structure, its members enjoy de facto immunity. With that in mind, Article 41 provides the SC with authority to negotiate, use arbitration, diplomatic methods, and similar such measures to address the aforementioned acts.
However, the SC does not have a legal basis to establish judicial bodies.
According to international law, the practical method of establishing any international judicial body must begin with a treaty. Once such a treaty has been ratified, the judicial body can be created by the U.N. General Assembly - not by the Security Council. The reasons for this are two cornerstones principles of international law: state sovereignty and state equality.
The ICTY has determined, in the case of Prosecutor v. Blaskic, that it, as an organ of the SC, is superior to states. This contradicts the language of its statute, which requires states to "co-operate." By taking the position that it, and incidentally its prosecutor, as an "organ" of the ICTY, is superior to any state, the ICTY is behaving in a manner consistent with the "rule of law" as defined by the Ottoman Sultan.
It is worth mentioning that Selim III declared a "new world order" in 1793, in an effort to subdue rebellious Suzerain States. The Suzerain states had their governments, but ultimately, authority was placed in the Sultan. Bad behavior got punishment, compliance got rewards. Sound familiar?
Another significant point is the fact that, normally, parties to a legal dispute have equal status before a neutral court. The structure of the ICTY defies this principle, since it places the Prosecutor above the accused by virtue of the Prosecutor's status as an organ of the court. Then there is the question of an absence of separation of powers, since the ICTY and Prosecutor have legislative abilities under the statute.
Another factor lies in the fact that unlike under the treaty establishing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, the ICTY has been left to establish its own rules of court. As noted in Prosecutor v. Tadic, they make up the rules as they go along.
The ICTY, in its rules, also has denied the accused basic rights as provided under the declaration of human rights and the Covenant on Civil and political rights. Example: the presumption of innocence. The Milosevic indictment demonstrates that in fact the Tribunal indicts first, therefore presuming guilt, and investigates later. See Diana Johnstone's 'Humanitarian War: Making the Crime fit the punishment' for further elaboration on this point. (1)
In short I will not sit back and watch as the law is turned into something ala Orwell's 'Animal Farm' in which the truth is 'propaganda' and racism is acceptable. 'Two legs bad, four legs good' is not all that different from saying 'Serbs bad, NATO good.'
If one examines, even casually, the ICTY committee's final report to the Prosecutor concerning NATO's 78 day act of aggression, and if at the same time we at least bother to look at the U.N. Charter, the customs of war, and other applicable laws, we find something that if it were not so tragic, it truly would be hilarious.
1. Grdilica Bridge-Train Bombing.
No need to investigate. After all the NATO pilot really was trying to bomb the bridge. But after hitting the civilian passenger train, all that nasty smoke got in the way, so they couldn't see what they were doing and bombed it again.
2. Djakovica.
No need to investigate. NATO has consistently maintained that it did not hit the Djakovica civilian convoy with intent to attack civilians. NATO's consistency involved three versions of this incident. 1. The Serbs did it. 2. We did it, but we thought from at 15,000 feet in the air, those tractors were military vehicles. 3. We did it, but Military was mixed in with those civilians . No need to investigate because it is real hard to see what you are attacking from 15,000 feet in the air.
3. RTS (Serbian TV station)
It is a military target because it served 'dual purpose,' says the ICTY. Besides NATO believed it was exclusively used to incite hatred and propaganda.
But when NATO leaders compared Milosevic with Hitler, that wasn't inciting hatred, it was a compliment, right? Conditioning people around the world to look upon Serbs as vicious animals is not inciting hatred, right?
By the ICTY's reasoning, any media outlet, during a war, will be justifiably attacked, in direct contradiction to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, because the media outlet is failing to convey the message that NATO is giving us some educational bombing.
The 'dual purpose' argument flies in the face of the fact that the U.S. Department of Defense's review of the bombing campaign solely and exclusively identifies propaganda as the justification for selecting it as a target. According to Amnesty International, NATO officials told them the same thing. In short NATO lied to its own Kangaroo court!
The question is who is going to be the next target state, and which leader is going to be introduced to justice, NATO style? Which national group is going to be the next to be subjected to an ongoing incitement of hatred by way of NATO, who after all is only bombing people back to the stone age for humanitarian reasons.
- Carla Berg, Austria

Illegal Tribunal - Illegal Indictment
Statement of the International Progress Organization on the Hague War Crimes Tribunal's indictment of Serbian Leaders
Dr. Hans Koechler, President [posted 23 April 2001]
[The following statement was written just after the 'War Crimes Tribunal' brought 'indictments' against Slobodan Miloshevich (Milosevic) and other Serbian government leaders in 1999. The text was sent to us recently by a contributor from Germany. It was published by the International Progress Organization, an NGO (non-governmental organization) which has worked in various associations with the United Nations for almost 30 years. It makes excellent points, especially about the sheer illegality of the "War Crimes Tribunal". We post it for your information - Jared Israel.]

The International Progress Organization hereby presents the following legal observations on today's "indictment" by the "International Criminal Tribunal":
1. The "indictment" issued by the "Chief Prosecutor" of the so-called "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" is legally invalid because this "Tribunal" has no jurisdiction whatsoever in the present or any other case.
2. The "Tribunal" derives its raison d'être exclusively from Security Council resolution 827, adopted at the Council's 3217th meeting on 25 May 1993. In this resolution, establishing the so-called "International Criminal Tribunal," the Security Council states that it acts "under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations."
3. When adopting the above resolution, the Security Council acted ultra vires. According to the provisions of the U.N. Charter, the Council has no competence whatsoever in judicial matters. The provisions of Chapter VII determine the Council's competence in matters of international security but not in matters of criminal justice or other judicial matters. The sole authority in international judicial matters rests with the International Court of Justice.
4. The "determination," in the preamble of Security Council resolution 827, paragraph four, that the "widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law" on the territory of the former Yugoslavia "constitute a threat to international peace and security" does not provide a sound legal basis for the Security Council acting as a surrogate judicial authority or establishing an international court with jurisdiction in this or any other case.
5. It is regrettable that the institution of the Security Council, while being unable to stop the undeclared war waged by NATO countries against Yugoslavia in violation of international law, and while being prevented, because of the veto power of countries conducting the present war, from restoring international peace and security in Yugoslavia, is now being used to take a so-called "judicial" action against the legitimate Head of State and other high officials of the country under attack.
6. Under the present circumstances, the move by the "Chief Prosecutor" of the so-called "Tribunal," Ms. Louise Arbour, can only be considered of political nature. This interpretation is confirmed by today's statement of the President of the United States who declared that the "indictment" by the "Tribunal" can be seen as an endorsement of NATO's campaign.
7. The purely political nature of the "indictment" and the lack of any legal validity of this decision can further be seen from the fact that the "President" of the so-called "Tribunal," Ms. Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (United States of America), the "Chief Prosecutor," Ms. Louise Arbour (Canada), and the investigating "judge" in the present case, Mr. David Anthony Hunt (Australia), are citizens either of NATO member countries directly responsible for the undeclared war against Yugoslavia or of a country fully endorsing the NATO war. If the "Tribunal" would have taken general legal standards of impartiality seriously, it would have been obliged to determine that there is a conflict of interest for "judges" from countries waging an undeclared war against Yugoslavia to sit on such a panel initiating "judicial" action against the Head of State of the country under attack.
8. The political nature of the "indictment" was further made obvious by the "Chief Prosecutor's" press statement earlier today in which she expressed her view that the "indicted" Head of State cannot be considered a partner of any negotiations about a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Such a statement makes a mockery of whatever legal standards the so-called "Tribunal" claims to adhere to. By her statement, the "Chief Prosecutor" has tried to act as a surrogate politician and to influence political events in the interest of those NATO countries presently waging war against Yugoslavia.
9. When, in violation of the United Nations Charter, a self-appointed group of states claiming to act on behalf of international peace and human rights, wages an all-out war against a sovereign member state of the United Nations and deliberately destroys the civilian infrastructure of that country with impunity, the present move by functionaries of the so-called "Tribunal" to declare the legitimate leaders of the country under attack as criminals, can only be seen as an act to hamper the international community's efforts to settle the conflict in Yugoslavia by peaceful means. This move undermines all efforts to settle the conflict within the framework of the United Nations and only prolongs the suffering of the people of Yugoslavia including the Kosovar Albanians.
10. It would be fitting that the so-called "Tribunal"- if it wants, at least, to prove its credibility in terms of basic moral standards, in spite of its legal incompetence as explained above - should also turn its attention to the practices applied by the NATO coalition in its undeclared war against the people of Yugoslavia (including the province of Kosovo).
The provisions of Article 3 of the so-called "Tribunal" identify, among others, the following practices as "violations of the laws or customs of war":
(a) "employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" (c) "attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings;" etc.
NATO's use of depleted uranium missiles and of cluster bombs, NATO's attacks on villages, civilian buses etc. fall clearly within the definition of "violations of the laws or customs of war" as given in the Statute of that very "Tribunal" not to speak of the numerous grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 committed by the NATO alliance, for which the "Tribunal" also claims to be competent according to Article 2 of its Statute. As long as the "Tribunal" does not take action against those NATO politicians and military officers responsible for these grave breaches of international humanitarian law, the "Tribunal" can only be considered as one more futile exercise in the political use of judicial procedures within the framework of a "policy of double standards" which seems to be the essence of power politics in NATO's "New World Order."
11. A dangerous precedent is being created by this new use of judicial procedures for the purposes of power politics. The separation of powers, one of the basic requirements of the rule of law, is being completely neglected when a purely political organ of the United Nations, the Security Council, arrogates to itself judicial powers by establishing an "International Criminal Tribunal," and when the functionaries of this "Tribunal" act as surrogate politicians effectively hindering a political settlement of an international armed conflict. The sole responsibility for whichever judicial matters in international affairs rests with the International Court of Justice. It is this institution alone that decides on the legal questions related to aggression by one state or a coalition of states against another state, and that decides on issues of international humanitarian law.
12. Because of the regrettable paralysis of the Security Council, the member states of the United Nations as represented in the General Assembly should take immediate action on the basis of the "Uniting for Peace Resolution" (res. 377 A [V] of the General Assembly) in order to prevent a further dangerous deterioration of the situation in Yugoslavia. When otherwise invalid legal procedures are being used to prevent a just political settlement and when the ongoing large-scale bombing of Yugoslavia causes an ecological disaster rendering large areas uninhabitable, urgent action is required by the international community. If this new form of self-righteous power politics is not being checked, similar action may be taken in the time to come against other sovereign countries and their leadership. In this case, the "rule of force" will replace whatever remains of the "rule of law" in international relations. International anarchy will be the inevitable result. All political leaders and people of good will should unite against this most serious threat to the international order since the end of the Cold War.
Dr. Hans Koechler, President