Wednesday, March 04, 2009
SERBIAN PRESIDENT INNOCENT OF WAR CRIMES - BRITISH CABINET SUPPRESS RECORD ON IRAQ WAR
This is an unpublished letter sent to almost every national Scottish, British or in a shortened version US newspaper. Well guess how surprising, not to say statistically improbable, it is that none of them published it. Well neither surprising nor statistically improbable if the truth is being censored but very much so if any of these countries actually have a free press.
I believe that I am the first to suggest that fear of future prosecution may be the reason, or a reason, for the decision not to publish cabinet minutes on the discussion leading to the Iraq war but it certainly fits the known facts.
-------------------------
Dear Editor,
One explanation fitting Jack Straw's decision that the public should not know of the Cabinet's discussions preceding the Iraq war is that politicians everywhere are becoming more concerned that they may, in future, be held to account for apparent war crimes.
Coincidentally the NATO funded Yugoslav War crimes "court" has found Serbian President Milan Milutinovic innocent of war crimes purely because in a long trial no actual evidence could be produced against him. Only 3 years ago, as his blood test showing the presence of Rifampicine proves, when they were equally unable, in 4 1/2 years of "trial" to produce any evidence against Milosevic, persons unknown poisoned him in his cell.
This concern for future justice may also explain why, though our government made public the Attorney General's advice on the legality of the Iraq War they have refused to make public advice on the legality of whether the apparently even more dubious bombing of Yugoslavia was lawful or criminal. It was, after all, aimed 80% at civilians far from Kosovo in a democratic country whose territorial integrity we have, under the Helsinki Treaty, guaranteed to uphold & to support a KLA which even the Foreign Secretary had previously admitted was committing genocide. Indeed the government have refused even to say whether they ever bothered to seek such advice which must raise suspicions that they already knew it was criminal.
In any case the history of Kosovo under our occupation - numerous massacres of civilians such as the 210 murdered in the Dragodan Massacre a few hundred yards from the British military HQ; the ethnic cleansing of 350,000; the kidnap of 10s of thousands of schoolgirls (& boys) & their sale to western brothels: the kidnap & dissection of at least 1,300 Serb teens & their sale, in bits, to our hospitals - all carried out by the KLA helpfully signed up as our "police" by NATO proves that almost every senior British politician would indeed by far more vulnerable than any Serb if called before a court they hadn't paid for. It is unfortunate & almost inexplicable that these atrocities, some of them at least matching any act of Hitler have gone essentially unreported by our media.
Meanwhile many innocent people, like the popular moderate Bosnian Moslem politician Fikret Abdic, whose only "crimes" were to support the survival of a multicultural state & to oppose the press gangs of al Quaeda, who were then our convenient allies in dismembering the country & were shipping home boxes of human heads to Saudi, languishes in jail.
If we are ever to have a safe & peaceful world we all desperately need the sort of international courts Mr Straw & co so fear.
Sincerely
Neil Craig
References
Rifampicine in Milosevic's blood test http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20060601&articleId=2542
Response to FoI request on he government's legal advice on whether the war was legal http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2005/04/was-war-against-yugoslavia-legal.html
Foreign Secretary's statement to Parliament that the KLA, not the Yugoslavs were engaged inn genocide http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990118/debtext/90118-06.htm
Our atrocities in Kosovo http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/search?q=dragodan & http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ips040108.htm
Fikret Abdic http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j072001.html
---------------------------
Where there is something contentious i normally put in references proving what I say - this seems reasonable since otherwise I would be asking them to publish something without knowing its accuracy (though looking at any letters page you will see they often do). It also means that none of these newspapers can ever claim that their failure to report the facts was because they didn't know them.
I believe that I am the first to suggest that fear of future prosecution may be the reason, or a reason, for the decision not to publish cabinet minutes on the discussion leading to the Iraq war but it certainly fits the known facts.
-------------------------
Dear Editor,
One explanation fitting Jack Straw's decision that the public should not know of the Cabinet's discussions preceding the Iraq war is that politicians everywhere are becoming more concerned that they may, in future, be held to account for apparent war crimes.
Coincidentally the NATO funded Yugoslav War crimes "court" has found Serbian President Milan Milutinovic innocent of war crimes purely because in a long trial no actual evidence could be produced against him. Only 3 years ago, as his blood test showing the presence of Rifampicine proves, when they were equally unable, in 4 1/2 years of "trial" to produce any evidence against Milosevic, persons unknown poisoned him in his cell.
This concern for future justice may also explain why, though our government made public the Attorney General's advice on the legality of the Iraq War they have refused to make public advice on the legality of whether the apparently even more dubious bombing of Yugoslavia was lawful or criminal. It was, after all, aimed 80% at civilians far from Kosovo in a democratic country whose territorial integrity we have, under the Helsinki Treaty, guaranteed to uphold & to support a KLA which even the Foreign Secretary had previously admitted was committing genocide. Indeed the government have refused even to say whether they ever bothered to seek such advice which must raise suspicions that they already knew it was criminal.
In any case the history of Kosovo under our occupation - numerous massacres of civilians such as the 210 murdered in the Dragodan Massacre a few hundred yards from the British military HQ; the ethnic cleansing of 350,000; the kidnap of 10s of thousands of schoolgirls (& boys) & their sale to western brothels: the kidnap & dissection of at least 1,300 Serb teens & their sale, in bits, to our hospitals - all carried out by the KLA helpfully signed up as our "police" by NATO proves that almost every senior British politician would indeed by far more vulnerable than any Serb if called before a court they hadn't paid for. It is unfortunate & almost inexplicable that these atrocities, some of them at least matching any act of Hitler have gone essentially unreported by our media.
Meanwhile many innocent people, like the popular moderate Bosnian Moslem politician Fikret Abdic, whose only "crimes" were to support the survival of a multicultural state & to oppose the press gangs of al Quaeda, who were then our convenient allies in dismembering the country & were shipping home boxes of human heads to Saudi, languishes in jail.
If we are ever to have a safe & peaceful world we all desperately need the sort of international courts Mr Straw & co so fear.
Sincerely
Neil Craig
References
Rifampicine in Milosevic's blood test http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20060601&articleId=2542
Response to FoI request on he government's legal advice on whether the war was legal http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2005/04/was-war-against-yugoslavia-legal.html
Foreign Secretary's statement to Parliament that the KLA, not the Yugoslavs were engaged inn genocide http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990118/debtext/90118-06.htm
Our atrocities in Kosovo http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/search?q=dragodan & http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ips040108.htm
Fikret Abdic http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j072001.html
---------------------------
Where there is something contentious i normally put in references proving what I say - this seems reasonable since otherwise I would be asking them to publish something without knowing its accuracy (though looking at any letters page you will see they often do). It also means that none of these newspapers can ever claim that their failure to report the facts was because they didn't know them.
