NationStates Jolt Archive

Cause if you've been paying any attention since Clinton illegally
bombed Yugoslavia and became a war criminal, the tribunal agasinst Milosevic has been falling apart quite a bit.




Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal: A Study in Total Propaganda Service
http://covertaction.org//content/view/115/77/


We will illustrate this party line treatment in the Balkans wars by examining the work of Marlise Simons in her coverage of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY, or simply Tribunal) for the New York Times. Simons has been the paper's principal reporter on the Tribunal and one of the paper's leading reporters on the Balkans in general, and as we would expect, and as we will show, she has been an undeviating adherent to the party line. Our analysis is based on the study of her entire output of 120 articles dealing with the Tribunal, extending from December 7, 1994 to December 14, 2003 (excluding only her articles with fewer than 200 words). (6)

Sourcing

A party line commonly takes its cues and information from official sources.

Holy shitmonkeys, I actually agree with Shingogogol for once.

Holy Shitmonkey's, someone actually agrees with me.


here's a 2nd one (and sorta sappy) : we're all only human
(gotta remember that one)

Meh, the Serbs had interesting uses for outdated equipment. I'll scan some of the pictures I took there of a truck-mounted anti-aircraft gun converted to use for direct-fire infantry support. Nasty.

Meh, Nasty.



So what's your take on the article?

So what's your take on the article?
Pretty belivable evidence, though one should always expect propganda.

Pretty belivable evidence, though one should always expect propganda.


no doubt.


I'm sure we're all looking forward to just world on a planet without war.
Too often it seems war is some people's first choice, citing the above
as an end in very 1984 newspeak.

Meh, the Serbs had interesting uses for outdated equipment. I'll scan some of the pictures I took there of a truck-mounted anti-aircraft gun converted to use for direct-fire infantry support. Nasty.WOW !!that has been done since the second world war anti-aircraft guns have been used in anti-infantry or even anti-tank role ,the 20mm 'praga' or 30mm 'trocevac' thanks to all-round sights and movable baseplate it can be put on any military or civilian truck ,jeep or hmvy or toyota,pick-up ,APC in every army in the world u just need to uscrew some bolts and with portable drill use it where u need it...this were old but can work for next 100 years and remain in every army used mostly in APCs...that american-british court is completely political and bias and any more comment would be waste of time..

Cause if you've been paying any attention since Clinton illegally
bombed Yugoslavia and became a war criminal, the tribunal agasinst Milosevic has been falling apart quite a bit.

Marlise Simons on the Yugoslavia Tribunal: A Study in Total Propaganda Service
http://covertaction.org//content/view/115/77/


We will illustrate this party line treatment in the Balkans wars by examining the work of Marlise Simons in her coverage of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY, or simply Tribunal) for the New York Times. Simons has been the paper's principal reporter on the Tribunal and one of the paper's leading reporters on the Balkans in general, and as we would expect, and as we will show, she has been an undeviating adherent to the party line. Our analysis is based on the study of her entire output of 120 articles dealing with the Tribunal, extending from December 7, 1994 to December 14, 2003 (excluding only her articles with fewer than 200 words). (6)

Sourcing

A party line commonly takes its cues and information from official sources.

You forgot the PM of Canada at the time. The one whose lackey at the time, Paul Martin, said "we don't need the UN anymore".

Everyone gets so upset at Bush - when all of the precedent in ignoring the UN and attacking whoever the US and NATO would like to attack was already done during the Clinton Administration. And not just by the US.

all i have to say is BULLSHIT. i was THERE when it happened. i am one of those "muslim bosnians" that were supposedly not massacred. i don't even wanna respond with anything more than that. this is buncha political bullshit(counter-propaganda). i'm sure they also explain how milosevic won elections with the support of 107% of the population and how karadzic and him were best buddies and karadzic took all his orders from him. i'm sure they'll explain arkan and "arkan's tigers" (death row/life term prisoners released and formed into a militia with the sole purpose of rape, murder and pillage) and how arkan got miraculously assasinated when he agreed to testify....

all i have to say is BULLSHIT. i was THERE when it happened. i am one of those "muslim bosnians" that were supposedly not massacred. i don't even wanna respond with anything more than that. this is buncha political bullshit(counter-propaganda). i'm sure they also explain how milosevic won elections with the support of 107% of the population and how karadzic and him were best buddies and karadzic took all his orders from him. i'm sure they'll explain arkan and "arkan's tigers" (death row/life term prisoners released and formed into a militia with the sole purpose of rape, murder and pillage) and how arkan got miraculously assasinated when he agreed to testify....

Oh, I didn't have a problem with the bombing of Serbia. In fact, I think we waited too long to intervene. Had we done the usual "wait for the UN" thing, nothing would have been done at all, and more people would have been massacred.

The same people who think I'm outrageous for wanting to kill people who want to kill unarmed civilians for sport think it's just fine and dandy to sit on their hands waiting for the UN, while the bad guys in this world shoot people into pits.

This is instructive though, in the sense that it plainly shows the foolishness of convening these silly international tribunals. I don't know why they just didn't drag him into a competant national court and try him for breaking international norms.

The other aspect is this defense of "well the US broke the law too, so I should get off." It's a fairly well established prinicple of law that another's guilt does not absolve one of his own; notwithstanding the doctorine of necessity.

This is instructive though, in the sense that it plainly shows the foolishness of convening these silly international tribunals. I don't know why they just didn't drag him into a competant national court and try him for breaking international norms.

The other aspect is this defense of "well the US broke the law too, so I should get off." It's a fairly well established prinicple of law that another's guilt does not absolve one of his own; notwithstanding the doctorine of necessity.

And now you know why the US is not comfortable with the ICC. They know from experience (and usage) that international tribunals are mockeries of justice used solely for political ass-covering. Not for the implementation of justice.

Either the world and its laws and courts work, and work fairly and equitably, and without regard to politics or who won or lost a war, or they don't.

Obviously, they don't.

And now you know why the US is not comfortable with the ICC. They know from experience (and usage) that international tribunals are mockeries of justice used solely for political ass-covering. Not for the implementation of justice.

In respect of these international tribunals in general, I actually question their legality in many cases. They are not provided for under international norms, and they are not established by treaty (ICC excluded), but rather as ad hoc judicial panels after the fact. To my mind this makes their general jurisdiction questionable to say the least; nevermind questions of due process, questions of subject matter jurisdiction &c.

And as I have pointed out to advocates of the ICC many times, the current subject matter jurisdiction of the ICC - by and large - is no different to the types of crimes that can already be tried in domestic courts if the member states so chose. The only exception I can think of off-hand is the proposed agressive war provisions, which are not, in any case, operative at the moment. So what's the point? Further the ICC will only last as long as it never pisses off one of the more powerful signatories. The second a three judge panel does something gravely prejudicial to french or british interests they will likely recieve the following written notice of withdrawl: "Dear Sir/Madam, as per the Vienna Convention on Treaties 1967, we are exercizing our right to tell you to fuck off."

Either the world and its laws and courts work, and work fairly and equitably, and without regard to politics or who won or lost a war, or they don't.

Obviously, they don't.

"War" criminals should be tried in domestic courts, or not at all.

all i have to say is BULLSHIT. i was THERE when it happened. i am one of those "muslim bosnians" that were supposedly not massacred. i don't even wanna respond with anything more than that. this is buncha political bullshit(counter-propaganda). i'm sure they also explain how milosevic won elections with the support of 107% of the population and how karadzic and him were best buddies and karadzic took all his orders from him. i'm sure they'll explain arkan and "arkan's tigers" (death row/life term prisoners released and formed into a militia with the sole purpose of rape, murder and pillage) and how arkan got miraculously assasinated when he agreed to testify....
and all u are is just that -a little shit... u were in kosovo?!or in bosnia?! albanians did kill lot of bosnians in kosovo too but that doesnt seem to bother you.....U are still alive and have a computer and a bad tongue.Thats the statistic the truth and facts not counter-propaganda u should have read the post before saying something so stupid anyways a good answer to muslim-croat propaganda,and to all those reporters that only reported from Sarajevo when serbs done something bad when muslims did it there wasnt anybody there exept sometimes russian reporters [sebian civilians massacred by bosnian moujahedins and bin-ladens voluntears].Izetbegovic has thanked for help and shaken hands with al-quaidas 3rd in command in bosnia and it is on tape!!-or is that propaganda?! Milosevic never got 107% not even 50% but belive in aliens i dont care just stop lieing to people here.Karadzic and Milosevic were good sometimes sometimes bad relations but if Karadzic was in control your kind would have been whiped out form this planet so paradox is u should thank Milosevic for being still alive...Just type in google Bin-Laden Bosnia and see more "propaganda".It was impossible to win against cooperation between Klinton and Bin laden together forever.I hope u 2 kill each other in Iraq for us its a Win-Win situation!!!u have even got sierra BTHP confused :rolleyes: he was talking about bosnia sierra not kosovo man in kosovo muslims lived normal there under milosevic untill albanians got control.