Stalin Wasn't Stallin'

In one of his conversations with one-time Yugoslav Communist leader Milovan Djilas, Stalin observed: "Churchill is the kind who, if you don't watch him, will slip a kopeck out of your pocket? Roosevelt is not like that. He dips in his hand only for bigger coins. But Churchill? Churchill-even for a kopeck."

As usual, Stalin was right on the money, particularly on the nature of the Anglo-American "special relationship." While the British act as the brutish street enforcers, the Americans are the big-time mobsters who buy off courts, judges and politicians. It was entirely in character, therefore, that the British should have been assigned the task of kidnapping Slobodan Milosevic and denying him the due process that any citizen of a law-governed state is entitled to.

The coming show trial in the Hague, on the other hand, with its preordained verdict, falls within the jurisdiction of the Americans. It is so heartwarming to see the Anglo-Americans-those supposed champions of freedom under law and the sanctity of contracts-trash every law, treaty and convention on the books as they pursue their insane globalist dreams. Here is what the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified by both the British and the Americans) says: "Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful." That went straight into the wastepaper basket as the Anglo-Americans abducted Milosevic before the Yugoslav courts had had a chance to decide on the legality of his transfer. But then what is one to expect of governments that establish kangaroo courts like the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter?

The UN Security Council, under relentless U.S. pressure, created the Tribunal in 1993. It was imposed on the countries of the former Yugoslavia by the very powers that had instigated the wars there. According to the UN Charter, the Security Council has the power to take action only in response to a threat to peace. The Charter does not permit the Security Council to establish international courts of law, to try individuals or to circumvent the national courts of UN members. Since as a matter of logic the Security Council cannot delegate to another body more powers than it has itself, Carla del Ponte's little Tribunal has no legal standing whatsoever, just as Milosevic has said.

The Tribunal has never been anything more than just another weapon deployed by the United States to impose its will on the Balkans. Its creation violated every precedent in international law. And its day-to-day conduct violates every principle of jurisprudence and common decency. Defendants are seized and held in detention almost indefinitely-thousands of miles away from friends, family and home-before their cases come to trial, if they ever do. Bail is hardly ever granted. Prison authorities read all their mail, which is often censored, withheld or confiscated. Telephone calls are recorded. There is no protection against self-incrimination: "A witness may object to making any statement which might tend to incriminate the witness. The Chamber may, however, compel the witness to answer the question." There is no protection against double-jeopardy. Prosecutors can appeal an acquittal and can insist on the continued detention of a defendant who has been acquitted.

Prosecutor and court is one and the same body. There is no jury. There is no independent appeals body. Presumption of guilt is automatic. Article 1 of the Tribunal's statute declares: "The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991." Any halfway responsible judicial body would at least have said something like "to put on trial persons accused of serious violations of international humanitarian law." The Tribunal has the right to set its own rules on procedure and evidence. Since February 1994 its rules have been amended no less than 20 times. The court-the prosecutor, in other words-can reject defense counsel if it decides that "conduct of that counsel is offensive, abusive or otherwise obstructs the proper conduct of the proceedings." Defense counsel, needless to say, cannot reject prosecutors. Prosecutors can withhold vital information from the defense.

Defendants have virtually no right to confront their accusers. Prosecution witnesses, for example, have the right not to answer questions they do not want to answer: "If the Prosecutor calls a witness to introduce in evidence any information?the Trial Chamber may not compel that witness to answer any question relating to the information or its origin, if the witness declines to answer on grounds of confidentiality." That's very comforting. Prosecution witnesses, moreover, do not even have to appear in court and face defense counsel. They can just give a deposition before a court officer. The identity of witnesses may be concealed. Witnesses can use image- or voice-altering devices, they can use pseudonyms, they can have their names expunged from the Tribunal public records.

It is clear that neither laws nor any sense of fair play will stop this rampant U.S. arrogance. The time may soon come when we will have to call for the return of the spirit of the man who terrified the United States like no one else ever has. Come back Stalin-(almost) all is forgiven.