3 March 2002


The kangaroo (aka "World") court in Brussels continues.  Slobbodan Milosevic does not need to belabour the point.  Anybody who seriously researched the question knows that there were no state atrocities in Kosovo prior to Hillary's incitation.  (SPIN subscribes to the theory that Hillary demanded of her errant husband that he bomb Serbia).

Prior to NATO intervention, there most certainly was KLA terrorist violence, mostly against Kosovar Muslims (those who would not "help" the KLA), although Serbian Kosovars were also victimized.  Any so called Serb "Atrocities" probably resulted from heavy handed police attempts to curb the KLA.

Prior to NATO bombing, didn't Milosevic offer to appoint recently elected president Rugova as president of Kosovo?  Wasn't the NATO response a rejection of Serbian Quislings?

As for the earlier atrocities, it does seem on a theoretical basis that Slobbodan can only be implicated marginally for events that occurred in neighboring states.  Surely if "unauthorized" intervention in the affairs of neighboring states (even to murder) were a crime, then leaders of most of the world's major powers should be before the court?

The world court obtained Milosevic forcefully in a manner contrary to the laws of the country from which he was obtained, so is not his trial based on an illegal seizure?

Perhaps the Serbians should put on trial the person who illegally gave Milosevic to the NATO powers & the World Court.


Liberal US media figures are missing the point when they complain that Bush would not have won the recount without a stacked High court.   They are wrong because the court is not the way to correct procedural mistakes in the electoral counting process.  If the electoral counting process must be modified, it should be modified by tightening up the electoral counting procedures for future elections.

Gore's error was in attempting to utilize the court to win.  Now that the precedent has been set that the courts are the arbiters of elections, then whoever holds a majority in the final court of appeal can contest any election, and be (nearly) certain of winning.

Since High court judges are appointed by the president, this precedent could de facto be manipulated to give the USA a self perpetuating dictatorship.

Gore did wrong.   Gore's should never have submitted the matter to a court at all.   Even if he held a majority in the court of ultimate appeal (the High Court).  It still would have been wrong.

The precedent Gore has set has the potential of destabilizing the US presidential selection process for centuries.

Alec Baldwin is wrong.  Gore's action was an order of magnitude more severe an attack on the integrity of the USA than 9/11.


email here