Forum Klix.ba

B. DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BAIRD

6081. In this matter the majority was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the shell that struck
the Markale market on 5 February 1994 was fired from SRK held territory by SRK soldiers. I
respectfully disagree with this finding.

6082. In his Final brief at paragraph 2056, the Accused submitted that the UN investigators had
stated that in extracting the tail fin assembly from the crater, the FreBat 4 team (unavoidably)
disturbed the integrity of the crater for any purpose which followed. At paragraph 2069, the
Accused stated that the UN Investigative Team collectively and officially concluded that by the
time the team had conducted its analyses, six days had elapsed since the explosion: it was
reasonable to suspect that the crater had been thoroughly excavated by the local authorities during
that period, hence the angles measured on 11 February were not beyond suspicion. They concluded
that the results measured on 11 February were not sufficiently accurate to be used as a basis for a
finding. At paragraph 2073 the Accused stated that the UN Investigative Team concluded that
there was insufficient physical evidence to prove that one party or another had fired the mortar
bomb. And at paragraph 2075, the Accused demonstrated that the findings of the UN Investigative
Team were endorsed by Colonel Gauthier as he testified as a Defence witness in 2012. As far as I
am aware the accuracy of these submissions was never challenged, neither was it made the subject
of negative comment by the Chamber. Indeed, in some instances, the pertinent evidence was
actually received by the Chamber.

6083. As I see it, this is powerful language employed by the UN Investigative Team. They are in
effect saying that there is reasonable doubt that the shell was fired by the Bosnian Serb Forces, and
one must not lose sight of the fact that this is a report of Prosecution witnesses. The Prosecution
witness Zečević however, was of opinion that the shell could only have been fired from the Bosnian
Serb positions.

6084. What I was presented with therefore, was clear and indisputable conflict in the evidence of
the Prosecution witnesses. And this conflict went to the root of the Prosecution case.

6085. In this situation I am of the view that the majority should have been driven to resolve this
conflict in favour of the Accused.

6086. At paragraph 4247, the majority stated that while the Chamber heard evidence to the effect
that measurements and estimates of the angle of descent were unreliable in this incident due to the
crater having been disturbed, it was also struck by the fact that all but one of the estimated angle
ranges were relatively close to each other and in fact overlapped.

6087. Defence witnesses apart, it is the witnesses for the Prosecution whose evidence the majority
considered, and which evidence demonstrated that the measurements and estimates of the angle of
descent were unreliable due to the disturbance of the crater. There is no clear indication from the
majority whether they were accepting the evidence that the measurements and estimates of the
angle of descent were unreliable, or whether they were rejecting the evidence on this question. To
my mind there was consensus among the UN Investigators who attended the scene, that once the
Frebat 4 battalion had removed the tail fin without taking measurements it was not possible to
calculate the angle of descent.

6088. In the face of this evidence – evidence which I might add was pointedly favourable to the
Accused – I am hard pressed to see why the majority should go on to be ‘struck’ by the relative
closeness of the estimated angle ranges, bar one, and by their overlap.

6089. In a criminal matter where the burden is on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the
Accused beyond the reasonable doubt, this evidence should have been enough to cause reasonable
doubt to intrude on the minds of the majority.

6090. Of some significance is the fact that the majority stated at paragraph 4248, that they could
not be sure that the speed of the shell as determined by Zečević was ‘absolutely accurate’,
particularly in light of Allsop’s evidence. Irrespective of the language used, the majority is
rejecting the evidence of Zečević in this regard, in favour of that of Allsop.

6091. It should be noted that the evidence of Zečević was that any inaccuracy in the measurement
of the depth of the crater would have affected the calculations of the impact velocity of the shell
and that it was more likely that the depth of the crater was not measured properly in this case, given
the disturbance to the crater during the investigations that took place on 5 and 6 February 1994.

6092. I come now to the question of the ‘common feature’ at paragraph 4248. The majority
noticed a ‘common feature’ in the evidence of Zečević, Higgs, Allsop and Subotić, that is to say,
that a mortar bomb fired at one of the higher charges would typically result in the stabiliser
penetrating the ground and embedding therein. The majority noted that Higgs referred to ‘two
highest charges in this respect’, Zečević to charges four, five and six, and Subotić to charge three or
higher. The majority considered that in the case at hand, the stabiliser was found embedded in the
ground with its top at a depth of around nine centimetres from the surface. In the final analysis,
they concluded that the shell was fired on a charge higher than one or two and therefore from SRK
positions.

6093. Without going into the validity or otherwise of their reasoning, my concern is that the
Accused was never given an opportunity to address this question as a discrete issue. It was never
presented to the Accused for him to comment one way or another thereon. As a result the question
was never fully ventilated before the Chamber as a contentious issue. The majority however made
a seminal conclusion based on this question, and this in turn, played a crucial role in their decision
that the shell had been fired by the Bosnian Serb side. This was unfortunate. It must be borne in
mind that we are not within the realm of exact science and it would have been only fair to the
Accused for him to be put on notice so that some input from him could have been forthcoming. A
decision given under these circumstances therefore, would be flawed as offending against a basic
principle of natural justice.

6094. I will add that even if the mortar had been fired on the higher charges, the origin of fire
could only have been determined if the proper angle of descent had been calculated and I
ingeminate the evidence above quoted that all the Investigators who attended the scene were
unanimous that it was not possible to properly calculate the angle of descent once the integrity of
the crater had been disturbed.

6095. The majority noted at paragraph 4249, that while Gauthier suggested that the ABiH could
have used mobile mortars, they were not convinced that it would have been possible for the ABiH
to fire at the market area from a mobile mortar without being seen, given the densely populated
area in the direction of fire and given the proximity of the residential are of Sedrenik to the ABiH
positions in Grdonj. In this particular case, this was flagrant speculation, made in an evidential
void, and could form no proper basis for the rejection of evidence that could have introduced
reasonable doubt in the minds of the majority. The majority also considered that there was an
absence of any evidence as to the sighting of mobile mortars on that date, or shell fire noise coming
from within the city. I do not think that this is the proper case in which the absence of the evidence
can contribute to the presence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Analiza svjedočenja zaštičenog svjedoka KW586 od strane suca

6096. In paragraph 4252, the majority rejected the evidence of the witness that the Bosnian
Muslim side had deliberately targeted Markale so as to achieve international condemnation of the
Bosnian Serb and thus further its own political agenda, on the ground that the witnes
in credibility in relation to this evidence for a number of reasons. I will deal with these reasons
seriatim.

6097. As a preface however, I must state that I do not think that the majority would dispute the
fact that the witness answered the questions put to him under cross examination – which came from
all directions – with a spontaneity and readiness that was quite impressive. Indeed, on occasions he
actually corrected the Prosecution.

6098. The first reason identified in paragraph 4252 by the majority is that: “The majority found it
unlikely that someone in KW586’s position would have been privy to such high level meetings
where such sensitive matters were discussed”. This is speculation run riot. There is not an atom of
evidence to support this conclusion. And this is not a matter of which the majority could properly
have taken judicial notice. What is more, the witness gave an explanation that the Prosecution
failed to contradict or neutralize. I see no good reason therefore, for the witness to be regarded as
lacking in credibility.

6099. The second reason in paragraph 4252 is that: “KW586 exhibited a high degree of animosity
towards the current political leadership in BiH, which obviously played a part in his coming
forward with his evidence”. The witness did in fact, employ intemperate language in referring to
the current political leadership in BiH. He explained that he came forward because after the war,
he saw what he considered to be injustice – ‘if one who is liable is held to account, then another one
should be held to account as well’.20680 Whether there was merit in his reasoning or not, whether
this was misguided reasoning or not, this was the reason he decided to come forward. And I cannot
conceive how he could be regarded as lacking in credibility for his reasoning

6100. The third reason listed in paragraph 4252 is: “There were also inconsistencies between his
testimony in court and his witness statement, such as his evidence about the level of involvement of
members of the Pakistani UNPROFOR contingent in the Markale incident and the involvement of
Halilović, who the witness acknowledged had been removed from his position by Izetbegović at
that time”.

6101. An examination of the evidence of the witness in this respect might be helpful:.
Q. Well, you said in your statement why they needed that UNPROFOR team. You said
that they had some kind of agreements with them that they wouldn’t register the firing of
missiles from our positions, so UNPROFOR was part of the conspiracy you’re alleging
in your own words?
A. I never said that, and if it’s written somewhere then it needs to be corrected. I never
said that the UNPROFOR was part of the conspiracy; UNPROFOR wasn’t. It’s just that
one crew, I don’t know whether they were a bit careless or less attentive, but nobody
ever said that UNPROFOR was part of the conspiracy.

6102. I can see no inconsistency in his reply. The Prosecutor began her question by stating that
the witness had said in his statement why they needed the UNPROFOR ‘team’, but in ending the
question she dropped the word ‘team’ and put to the witness: “[…] so UNPROFOR was part of the
conspiracy you’re alleging in your own words?” The witness then protested that he never said that
UNPROFOR was part of the conspiracy; UNPROFOR was not, it was just that one ‘crew’. He
commented that the way the Prosecutor had put it, it sounded like the whole UNPROFOR
conspired against the Bosnian Serbs. ‘It was just one crew, two or three men’ 20682.

6103. I failed to see any inconsistency in this evidence. In paragraph 4252, the majority also
considered the reference of the witness to Halilović as a reason for holding that the witness was
inconsistent with his witness statement. The Prosecutor put to the witness that his evidence of
conspiracy was fictional because at the time he said the discussions were going on, Halilovic had
been ostracised and dismissed from the army. The witness admitted that Halilović had been
ostracised and advanced reasons for his ostracism. He then went on to explain that although
Itzetbegović had removed him ‘under pressure’; he had not dismissed him from the army. And he
would attend meetings whenever he was in Sarajevo. The Prosecutor did not specifically challenge
this evidence and introduced no evidence to contradict the witness.

6104. It cannot be fair to the witness therefore to say that he was inconsistent with his witness
statement. I must also emphasize that in the course of cross examination, the Prosecutor sought to
contradict the witness by referring to comments he made during an interview with the Prosecution a
few days earlier.20684 The Prosecutor however, failed to put in evidence any written material that
tended to contradict what the witness had said in the interview or to call viva voce evidence to that
effect. The Prosecutor therefore, was bound by the answers of the witness and the witness could
not be considered to have been contradicted.

6105. The fourth reason identified by the majority in paragraph 4252 is: “Essentially, KW586’s
evidence implies a conspiracy of a large scale. However, in the majority’s view, such conspiracy is
not supported by any other evidence on the record”. In this particular situation, I harbour the view
that the fact that the evidence of conspiracy is not supported by any other evidence could not be a
valid ground for the majority to hold that the witness lacked credibility. The evidence of
conspiracy was presented by the Accused as a crucial and integral part of his case and the Defence
is under no obligation to call corroborative evidence to support the evidence of any Defence
witness. The fact therefore, that there is no other evidence supporting the evidence of conspiracy
cannot be reason for the witness to be considered as lacking in credibility.

6106. The fifth reason identified by the majority is: “Finally, if true, it would have meant that the
ABiH was able to make a successful hit on Markale market in only its second attempt. Recalling
the evidence the Accused led on the low likelihood of such an intentional hit, the Chamber finds
this to be impossible”. ‘Likelihood’ is synonymous with ‘probability’. And this is not, by any
means, a proper instance in which ‘improbability’ could have been equated with ‘impossibility’. I
can see no good reason therefore for deeming the witness to be lacking in credibility in this respect.

6107. In the final analysis I espouse the view that the reasoning the majority advanced for holding
the witness to be lacking in credibility was itself deficient in substantiality and was unable to stand
up to klix.

6108. The majority also identified ‘other evidence’ which they considered indicated that the shell
was fired from the SRK side. At paragraph 4249 they referred to the evidence that the SRK’s 7th
battalion of the 1 st Romanija Infantry Brigade had 120 mm mortars in the area of Mrkovići, which
was north-northeast of Markale, whereas the evidence before the Chamber was consistent that the
ABiH had no mortars in the area of Grdonj. They added that Gengo testified that the ABiH would
open fire mostly from the area of Jajce Barracks and Koševo, rather than Grdonj. I experienced
profound difficulty in seeing how this evidence could have convinced the majority to hold that
beyond reasonable doubt the shell was fired from the Bosnian Serb side.

6109. Also at paragraph 4249, the majority seemed to have accepted the evidence of Gauthier that
he could not recall any ABiH mortar positions in the established directions of fire. This could not
possibly have amounted to proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is noteworthy that Gauthier, having
given the above evidence, went on to state that the ABiH could have used mobile mortars. The
majority however, rejected this evidence on what I considered to be speculative grounds (ante).
6110. At paragraph 4250, the majority referred to the evidence that the SRK would open fire on
the area of Stari Grad from the SRK positions above Sedrenik. They also considered the testimony
of Hamill regarding Cvetković’s admission that the SRK fired a large number of mortar rounds into
Stari Grad prior to the incident in Markale, and the UNMO’s report on the morning of 5 February,
prior to the Markale incident, that the city centre had been shelled on the night of 4 or 5 February.
6111. I experienced even greater difficulty in comprehending how the majority could have
considered that this evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the shell was fired from the
Bosnian Serb side.

Ovdje mozete pogledati svjedocenje:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86fCtU-59Kc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksVOkOBManY

2. Analiza svjedočenja KW570
6112. I refer to an area of the evidence of KW570 which I consider apropos to the issue under
consideration. The witness testified that at the meeting on 8 February between General Rose and
the leadership of the Bosnian Muslim Military in Sarajevo, Rose stated that evidence was emerging
that the market place shelling might have been carried out by their side. The witness testified that
there was a complete silence after Rose’s statement; thereafter, the Bosnian Military leadership
claimed that they had taped a conversation involving the Bosnian Serbs to the effect that they had
confessed to the ‘atrocity’.20685 The witness further stated that the Bosnian government never
produced any such tape or evidence to demonstrate that the Bosnian Serbs had fired the mortar.20686
The production of this alleged tape would have put a firm and definitive end to this matter and
would have been incontrovertible attestation to the guilt of the Bosnian Serb side. The tape
however, was never produced and nothing further was said about it.This left one with the abiding
impression that their story was an egregious lie. This conduct on the part of the Bosnian Military
Leadership led inexorably to the conclusion that, at the least, there was reasonable doubt that the
shell had been fired by the Bosnian Serb side
.
To all appearances, the majority made no specific comment on this area of the evidence of
this witness. What they did say at paragraph 4252 was that while they accept the ‘general
evidence’ given by KDZ185, KW570 and Milovanović that the Bosnian Moslim side tried to gain
sympathy from the international community and would provoke attacks by the SRK with that goal
in mind, it was of ‘general nature’ and did not, as such, cast doubt on the majority’s finding that the
shell came from SRK positions.

6114. In uno flatu therefore, the majority seemed to be saying that they accepted the evidence of
KW570 but dismissed it as being ‘of general nature’. And because it was of ‘general nature’ (as
such) it did not cast doubt on their finding that the shell came from the SRK positions.

6115. The majority failed to clarify what they meant by ‘general nature’. And this was vital
because it was due to the fact that the evidence was consigned to the category of ‘general nature’
that it did not succeed in casting doubt on their finding.

6116. Further, it is reasonable to assume that when the majority accepted the evidence of KW570,
they accepted his narrative of the taped conversation. In this situation it would have been
extremely helpful for the majority to give full reasons why in the face of accepting the evidence of
the taped conversation, they were not prepared to address it but were merely disposed to gather it
under the amorphous heading of ‘general nature’. It is not insignificant that KW570 was a member
of UNPROFOR at the time of the incident and he was also a Defence witness. The evidence he
gave had the potential for casting doubt that the Bosnian Serb side was responsible for firing the
shell. And this evidence formed an integral part of the Defence case.

6117. The Accused was therefore, entitled to some exposure to the minds of the majority for their
dismissal of this evidence, other than the cryptic ‘of general nature’.

3. Conclusion
6118. I am therefore, of the view that when all the factors I have identified above are collocated,
the resulting edifice is of such, that I can hold that there is reasonable doubt that the Bosnian
Muslim side fired the mortar bomb on the Markale Market.
6119. In the circumstances I am of opinion that the Accused must be acquitted of this charge.

Nikola Testa wrote:B. DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BAIRD

6081. In this matter the majority was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the shell that struck
the Markale market on 5 February 1994 was fired from SRK held territory by SRK soldiers. I
respectfully disagree with this finding.

6082. In his Final brief at paragraph 2056, the Accused submitted that the UN investigators had
stated that in extracting the tail fin assembly from the crater, the FreBat 4 team (unavoidably)
disturbed the integrity of the crater for any purpose which followed. At paragraph 2069, the
Accused stated that the UN Investigative Team collectively and officially concluded that by the
time the team had conducted its analyses, six days had elapsed since the explosion: it was
reasonable to suspect that the crater had been thoroughly excavated by the local authorities during
that period, hence the angles measured on 11 February were not beyond suspicion. They concluded
that the results measured on 11 February were not sufficiently accurate to be used as a basis for a
finding. At paragraph 2073 the Accused stated that the UN Investigative Team concluded that
there was insufficient physical evidence to prove that one party or another had fired the mortar
bomb. And at paragraph 2075, the Accused demonstrated that the findings of the UN Investigative
Team were endorsed by Colonel Gauthier as he testified as a Defence witness in 2012. As far as I
am aware the accuracy of these submissions was never challenged, neither was it made the subject
of negative comment by the Chamber. Indeed, in some instances, the pertinent evidence was
actually received by the Chamber.

6083. As I see it, this is powerful language employed by the UN Investigative Team. They are in
effect saying that there is reasonable doubt that the shell was fired by the Bosnian Serb Forces, and
one must not lose sight of the fact that this is a report of Prosecution witnesses. The Prosecution
witness Zečević however, was of opinion that the shell could only have been fired from the Bosnian
Serb positions.

6084. What I was presented with therefore, was clear and indisputable conflict in the evidence of
the Prosecution witnesses. And this conflict went to the root of the Prosecution case.

6085. In this situation I am of the view that the majority should have been driven to resolve this
conflict in favour of the Accused.

6086. At paragraph 4247, the majority stated that while the Chamber heard evidence to the effect
that measurements and estimates of the angle of descent were unreliable in this incident due to the
crater having been disturbed, it was also struck by the fact that all but one of the estimated angle
ranges were relatively close to each other and in fact overlapped.

6087. Defence witnesses apart, it is the witnesses for the Prosecution whose evidence the majority
considered, and which evidence demonstrated that the measurements and estimates of the angle of
descent were unreliable due to the disturbance of the crater. There is no clear indication from the
majority whether they were accepting the evidence that the measurements and estimates of the
angle of descent were unreliable, or whether they were rejecting the evidence on this question. To
my mind there was consensus among the UN Investigators who attended the scene, that once the
Frebat 4 battalion had removed the tail fin without taking measurements it was not possible to
calculate the angle of descent.

6088. In the face of this evidence – evidence which I might add was pointedly favourable to the
Accused – I am hard pressed to see why the majority should go on to be ‘struck’ by the relative
closeness of the estimated angle ranges, bar one, and by their overlap.

6089. In a criminal matter where the burden is on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the
Accused beyond the reasonable doubt, this evidence should have been enough to cause reasonable
doubt to intrude on the minds of the majority.

6090. Of some significance is the fact that the majority stated at paragraph 4248, that they could
not be sure that the speed of the shell as determined by Zečević was ‘absolutely accurate’,
particularly in light of Allsop’s evidence. Irrespective of the language used, the majority is
rejecting the evidence of Zečević in this regard, in favour of that of Allsop.

6091. It should be noted that the evidence of Zečević was that any inaccuracy in the measurement
of the depth of the crater would have affected the calculations of the impact velocity of the shell
and that it was more likely that the depth of the crater was not measured properly in this case, given
the disturbance to the crater during the investigations that took place on 5 and 6 February 1994.

6092. I come now to the question of the ‘common feature’ at paragraph 4248. The majority
noticed a ‘common feature’ in the evidence of Zečević, Higgs, Allsop and Subotić, that is to say,
that a mortar bomb fired at one of the higher charges would typically result in the stabiliser
penetrating the ground and embedding therein. The majority noted that Higgs referred to ‘two
highest charges in this respect’, Zečević to charges four, five and six, and Subotić to charge three or
higher. The majority considered that in the case at hand, the stabiliser was found embedded in the
ground with its top at a depth of around nine centimetres from the surface. In the final analysis,
they concluded that the shell was fired on a charge higher than one or two and therefore from SRK
positions.

6093. Without going into the validity or otherwise of their reasoning, my concern is that the
Accused was never given an opportunity to address this question as a discrete issue. It was never
presented to the Accused for him to comment one way or another thereon. As a result the question
was never fully ventilated before the Chamber as a contentious issue. The majority however made
a seminal conclusion based on this question, and this in turn, played a crucial role in their decision
that the shell had been fired by the Bosnian Serb side. This was unfortunate. It must be borne in
mind that we are not within the realm of exact science and it would have been only fair to the
Accused for him to be put on notice so that some input from him could have been forthcoming. A
decision given under these circumstances therefore, would be flawed as offending against a basic
principle of natural justice.

6094. I will add that even if the mortar had been fired on the higher charges, the origin of fire
could only have been determined if the proper angle of descent had been calculated and I
ingeminate the evidence above quoted that all the Investigators who attended the scene were
unanimous that it was not possible to properly calculate the angle of descent once the integrity of
the crater had been disturbed.

6095. The majority noted at paragraph 4249, that while Gauthier suggested that the ABiH could
have used mobile mortars, they were not convinced that it would have been possible for the ABiH
to fire at the market area from a mobile mortar without being seen, given the densely populated
area in the direction of fire and given the proximity of the residential are of Sedrenik to the ABiH
positions in Grdonj. In this particular case, this was flagrant speculation, made in an evidential
void, and could form no proper basis for the rejection of evidence that could have introduced
reasonable doubt in the minds of the majority. The majority also considered that there was an
absence of any evidence as to the sighting of mobile mortars on that date, or shell fire noise coming
from within the city. I do not think that this is the proper case in which the absence of the evidence
can contribute to the presence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Sad usporedite sta je ovdje napisano sa onim sta je tzv "Glas Srpske" napisao a rtvbn prenjeo, od naslova pa nadalje. Ocigledno se vidi da sudija u pitanju nije bio zadovoljan kolicinom dokaza iznesenim a ne da je ARBiH granatirala Markale.

...

Nikola Testa wrote:Takodje tuzilastvo mu je predocilo dokaz da je 94 godine kad se taj navodni razgovor desavao Halilovic bio smijenjen sa komandnog mjesta u Armiji na sto je on odgovorio da ga Izetbegovic nije trajno udaljio iz Armije te je Halilovic prisustvovao sastanku.

Đizs ne treba dalje, stvarno su ćetalji našli vjerodostojnog i inteligentnog svjedoka...pa ni priču mu nisu znali sastaviti... negdje u holu on prisluškuje Cerića, Sefera i Aliju (zadnja dvojica na krv i nož bili od pokušaja atentata na Ciglanama u jesen '93)...bez texta sam!

Toffee karamela wrote:

Nikola Testa wrote:Takodje tuzilastvo mu je predocilo dokaz da je 94 godine kad se taj navodni razgovor desavao Halilovic bio smijenjen sa komandnog mjesta u Armiji na sto je on odgovorio da ga Izetbegovic nije trajno udaljio iz Armije te je Halilovic prisustvovao sastanku.

Đizs ne treba dalje, stvarno su ćetalji našli vjerodostojnog i inteligentnog svjedoka...pa ni priču mu nisu znali sastaviti... negdje u holu on prisluškuje Cerića, Sefera i Aliju (zadnja dvojica na krv i nož bili od pokušaja atentata na Ciglanama u jesen '93)...bez texta sam!

Zasticeni svjedok na sudjenju Dragomiru Milosevicu je izjavio da su pripadnici ARBiH koristili AIR BOMBS protiv civila u Sarajevu.

Samo da kazem da se Bakir prosipa samo tako!
Kakav komad govedine!

Emisija Pečat. Ma ovo je ludnica. Pogledo sam prvih 10 minuta i ne mogu više. Rašin brat kaže da je imo uvid u sve papire a Radovan se je ranije žalio da ima previše papira. Advokat se žali kako nije uzeto u obzir šta se je dešavalo prije 93će jer bi valjda to opravdalo one pokolje...

Čovićeva šutnja o Karadžiću


Čović: Da li ga je stid svećenika Banjalučke biskupije Zvonimira Matijevića

Čak i najveći skeptici koji su vjerovali kako se lider HDZ BiH Dragan Čović neutemeljeno kritizira u medijima zbog kriminala, te da mu se sve podmeće jer je on jedini i istinski borac za ravnopravnost Hrvata u BiH, svojom znakovitom šutnjom nakon izricanja presude zločincu Radovanu Karadžiću pokazao im je neiskrenost i licemjerstvo, i otkrio da postoje čvrsti političko-poslovni dilovi između njega i Milorada Dodika.

Šutnja je znak da Čović lukavo radi na ostvarenju plana koji su započeli njegov politički idol Tuđman i Milošević dijeljenjem države Bosne i Hercegovine u Karađorđevu. Sada se Karađorđevo preselilo u Laktaše i Široki Brijeg, a on i Dodik zamijenili su prvobitno spomenuti dvojac.

Po principu ne diram ja tvoje, ne diraj ti moje, Dodik pomaže Čoviću na sve moguće načine da udari definitivni pečat na plan i pravno-formalnog ozvaničenja Herceg-Bosne. Lider HDZBiH je upotpunosti preuzeo kontrolu nad svim javnim kompanijama u čijem nazivu je HZHB, te kompletnu finansijsku vertikalu u državi. Federalnu vladu vrti oko malog prsta.

Uz vlastitu teritoriju imati i ekonomsku moć, a onda nastaviti obmanjivati Hrvate da jedino on i HDZ BiH su spas i sigurno utočište od neravnopravnosti i prepadati ih majorizacijom od strane Bošnjaka, Čovićev je jedini cilj.

I opet je tu itekako značajna Dodikova uloga. Primjerice, otkako se zakotrljala priča o Mostaru, nijednom se Čovićev partner iz RS nije oglasio po pitanju zaštite nekoliko hiljada Srba koji žive u ovom gradu. Dodika ti Srbi ne zanimaju, baš kao ni Čovića 200.000 Hrvata iz RS koje je Karadžić provodeći politiku etničkog čišćenja protjerao.

Kako to da “jedini zaštitnik” Hrvata u BiH ne naredi svom Davoru Čordašu, ministru za izbjeglice i raseljena lica da javno se ogradi od odluke Vlade RS koja je najavila da će pružiti svu neophodnu pomoć timu odbrane Radovana Karadžića, u procesu pripreme za žalbeni postupak. Šuti mudro Čordaš, jer njemu je dobro. Čović mu je u dogovoru sa Dodikom obezbijedio četiri godine ministarsku fotelju i plaću, te službeni stan u Banja Luci.

Što bi onda Čordaša bilo briga za 200.000 Hrvata otjeranih sa kućnoga praga kamama, puškama… I njega su otjerali iz RS, ali on se dobro snašao u zapadnom dijelu Mostara, tako da ga sem ličnog interesa ništa drugo i ne zanima.

Šuti Čović, ali ne šute drugi.

Oglasio se HDZ 1990, podsjećajući da je Karadžićeva monstruozna doktrina, temelj RS udarila na etničkom čišćenju i progonu 200.000 Hrvata, paljevini njihovih višestoljetnih ognjišta, samostana i uništavanju povijesne i kulturne baštine jednoga naroda.

-U moru prolivenih suza majki Srebrenice, koje i danas tragaju za posmrtnim ostacima svojih sinova, 40 godina se, pretvarajući u ljudske sudbine, topi u kaznu od dva dana robije po oduzetom životu, poručili su iz HDZ 1990.

Šuti Čović, ali ne šute drugi.

Davor Gjenero, politolog iz Zagreba demonstrativnim napuštanjem emisije na TV N1 kada se počelo u superlativu govoriti o Karadžiću pokazao je svoj stav spram zločinca. O presudi se oglasio i lider SDP Hrvatske Zoran Milanović.

I predsjednica Hrvatske Kolinda Grabar Kitarović (HDZ), pisala je majkama Srebrenice, nakon haške presude, suosjećajući u njihovoj boli.

Šuti Čović, ali ne šute drugi.

I vrhbosanski nadbiskup kardinal Vinko Puljić ocijenio je kako presuda nije dostatna bez iskrenoga kajanja za svo počinjeno zlo.

Presudom Haškog tribunala osuđen je jedan čovjek odgovoran za zločine, no kardinal smatra da njome nisu osuđeni korijen tih zločina i ideologija koja ih je kreirala.

Podsjetio je da je u februaru uputio posebno pismo patrijarhu SPC Irineju, u kojemu je pozvao na uvažavanje činjenica o ratnim zločinima na kojima je nastao današnji entitet Republika Srpska

Samo Dragan Čović šuti.

Da li ga je stid svećenika Banjalučke biskupije Zvonimira Matijevića, koji je tokom prošlogodišnje posjete pape Franje Sarajevu u Katedrali svjedočio o golgotama koje je prošao tokom rata.

Matijević je rekao da je bio zatočen u srpskom logoru, da su srpske snage pobile osam svećenika, da su brojne časne sestre stradale. Završio je svoju ispovijest riječima: “Opraštam im.”

Svećeniku Matijeviću nakon što je ispričao svoju potresnu priču o boravku u logoru, a nakon čega je obolio od multiplaskleroze, papa Franjo je suznih očiju poljubio ruku i kazao da moli za njegovu milost.

Ovaj svećenik kao i mnogi drugi, te 200.000 Hrvata u RS bili su žrtve Karadžićeve zločinačke politike, koju Čović nijednom riječju nije osudio nakon izricanja presude.

Da li ga je stid pogledati u oči ovom časnom čovjeku i reći mu da je on i samo on, zaštitnik hrvatskih interesa u BiH, a pri tome šutjeti o zločincu sa Durmitora?

Piše:E.L za http://www.nap.ba/new/vijest.php?id=22894

Ne znam šta očekujete od čovjeka i stranke čiji predstavnici (a među njima i Čović u prvom redu) idu na obilježavanje 9. januara u Banjaluku

Kakva god da je presuda, nikad i niko ne treba zaboraviti da su i Alija i Haris potpisali u Daytonu ovo Karadžičevo genicidno čedo.

hrasno38 wrote:Da je Karadžiću izrečena kazna doživotnog zatvora, imao bi pravo na prijevremeno puštanje za 20 godina, dok ovako može to tražiti tek nakon dvije trećine izdržane kazne, odnosno za 26 godina i 8 mjeseci. S doživotnom kaznom bio bi slobodan 2028., računajući i vrijeme provedeno u pritvoru. Ovako mu nema na slobodu prije 2035. godine

ŠBBKBB kalkulacije o dužini Radovanovog ležanja u zatvoru, ne treba da zamagle simboličnu suštinu kazne, doživotna robija je najveća moguća kazna koju ovaj sud može dodijeliti, proporcionalno težini pripisanih zloćina.
Radovan, kao nadređeni dvojici već pravomoćno osuđenih doživotnih robijaša zbog istih djela, Galića i Tolimira, je MORAO dobiti istu kaznu kao i oni.

Covic i stid
Dzaba potroseno vrijeme na pisanje clanka....sve mi to znamo.
Kao sto znamo da je Covic vuk sa jagnjecom kozom.
Tip sa osmjehom....ali osmjehom koji ne nosi nista dobro.
Nevezano za to sto je on Hrvat, jer je prije svega po nacionalnosti bandit kao i Bakir ili Mile (samo malo skolovaniji od njih), ali jasno je da ce svaki covjek s obrazom, s mrvom ljudskosti iznijeti stav kojim podrzava ovu odluku, odnosno nece mudro sutjeti kao sto je slucaj sa doticnim gospodinom.
Zato ne cudi reakcija javnosti Hrvatske (i pojedinih cestitih pripadnika bosanskih Hrvata) i mudra sutnja hercegovackih lopina.

Inaće, Frensis Boyl im je dobro odradio za genocid u Srebrenici dok ga Alija 1997. nije smjenio. Veliki posao odradili su i Židovi oni Ameički i svi skupa.

"Dejtonski sporazum je taj koji je odredio postojanje RS-a. Ona je nastala kao potreba srpskog naroda da se institucionalno zaštiti zapadno od Drine. Da se Jasenovac više nikada ne ponovi"

Ova mantra se danima ponavlja otkako je presudjeno RK.
Dakle, imamo novu mitomaniju. RS stvorena kako ne bi bosanski Srbi dozivjeli novi Jasenovac

Tomahawk11 wrote:

"Dejtonski sporazum je taj koji je odredio postojanje RS-a. Ona je nastala kao potreba srpskog naroda da se institucionalno zaštiti zapadno od Drine. Da se Jasenovac više nikada ne ponovi"

Ova mantra se danima ponavlja otkako je presudjeno RK.
Dakle, imamo novu mitomaniju. RS stvorena kako ne bi bosanski Srbi dozivjeli novi Jasenovac

ima nas koji se sjecamo prvobitnih ciljeva---od svi Srbi u jednoj državi do gdje srpski grob tu srpska zemlja.....................
pošto su popušili u Hrvatskoj, Kosovu, C.Gora zbrisala od njih ostala još ova uzp genocidna tvorevina

muha_sa wrote:

Tomahawk11 wrote:

"Dejtonski sporazum je taj koji je odredio postojanje RS-a. Ona je nastala kao potreba srpskog naroda da se institucionalno zaštiti zapadno od Drine. Da se Jasenovac više nikada ne ponovi"

Ova mantra se danima ponavlja otkako je presudjeno RK.
Dakle, imamo novu mitomaniju. RS stvorena kako ne bi bosanski Srbi dozivjeli novi Jasenovac

ima nas koji se sjecamo prvobitnih ciljeva---od svi Srbi u jednoj državi do gdje srpski grob tu srpska zemlja.....................
pošto su popušili u Hrvatskoj, Kosovu, C.Gora zbrisala od njih ostala još ova uzp genocidna tvorevina

Odlicno, sta je Republikom Srpskom Krajinom ili kako se vec zvala....je li i ona trebala biti u cilju da se ne desi novi Jasenovac ili sta vec?
Nastala kao potreba....jebo to kako je nastala, to cemo relativizirati i razvlaciti raznim pricama....i to sto je ratni predsjednik i vrhovni komandant osudjen za zlocine....sreca nas srela, hoce li ikad biti normalnog zivota na ovim prostorima

Tomahawk11

NIKAD a možda ni tad normalnog života ovdje nece bit

to ti kaže nepopravljivi optimista Muha


sad terapija: ko god može nek cupa i rukama i nogama da se ispali odavde--ne vrijedi trošit ovaj kratak život na zajebanciju kojoj nema kraja--iliti rahat patnju

muha_sa wrote:Tomahawk11

NIKAD a možda ni tad normalnog života ovdje nece bit

to ti kaže nepopravljivi optimista Muha


sad terapija: ko god može nek cupa i rukama i nogama da se ispali odavde--ne vrijedi trošit ovaj kratak život na zajebanciju kojoj nema kraja--iliti rahat patnju

Pa nece....a sve imamo, al kad smo prokleti....
Ja prvi put pred sami rat, trebao vani sa mamom i malom sestrom, izvadili pasose, sutradan zapucalo
Drugi put nekad 2002., postar me da izvines, zakasnio sa papirima, trebao ici vani studirati....sudbina, sta li....
Majku im, sta rade od ovog naroda.....

Pripadnici OSBiH i Sudske policije FBiH podržali zločinca

JELEČ I VEHABOVIĆ: Ljudi koji veličaju Karadžića ne mogu nositi bh. uniforme!

Govor mržnje

Za sada je razotkriveno da su to Goran Kovač i Vlado Vuković, pripadnici Oružanih snaga (OS) BiH, te službenik Sudske policije FBiH Dalibor Nedić, koji radi na osiguranju zgrade Vrhovnog suda Federacije BiH u Sarajevu. Oni su na svojim Facebook profilima dali otvorenu podršku Karadžiću. Tako je Kovač u znak podrške zločincu stavio Karadžićevu fotografiju na svoj profil, Vuković je u komentarima teško vrijeđao Bošnjake, dok je Nedić, kako piše “Patria”, na profilnoj fotografiji duže držao poruku: “I ja sam Radovan“. Jučer, istina, na njihovim profilima ovakvih fotografija nije bilo jer su ih, očito, u međuvremenu uklonili.

Generalpukovnik Anto Jeleč, načelnik Zajedničkog štaba Oružanih snaga BiH, u jučerašnjoj izjavi za “Dnevni avaz” ostao je zapanjen ovim saznanjima te je rekao da za ovaj skandal u režiji Kovača i Vukovića čuje upravo od našeg novinara.

- Niko mi ništa nije javio, ali odmah ću dati službama da provjere šta se desilo. To što su uradili nije dobro! Ne vjerujem da su oni to u svjesnom stanju uradili, ali sankcije će snositi bilo da su to uradili ili na jedan ili na drugi način. Žao mi je što se to desilo mojim vojnicima, što su nepotrebno upali u tu kolotečinu prihvatanja nečega takvog. Ali, u svakom žitu ima kukolja, mi ćemo to riješiti proceduralno, po zakonima u službi. Oni koji ne produbljuju zajednicu, jedinstvenu BiH, demokratsku uređenost, nema im mjesta u državnim institucijama. Čim dođem do preciznih podataka da ih procesuiram, ako se to dokaže, oni više neće biti pripadnici OSBiH, takvi ljudi ne mogu nositi uniformu – kategorično je poručio general Jeleč.

Propisi službe

Na upit o incidentu koji je napravio Nedić, za naš list odgovorio je i Edin Vehabović, komandant Sudske policije FBiH, koji je potvrdio da su o ovom slučaju nadležni već obaviješteni. U izjavi za "Avaz" Vehabović je potvrdio da će protiv ovog službenika već sutra biti pokrenut disciplinski postupak. Istaknuo je da je poruka koju je na svom profilu objavio Nedić za svaku osudu.

- Ta vijest došla je do mene, tako da ćemo odmah u ponedjeljak provesti interni postupak u skladu s postojećim propisima službe. Neprimjereno je da takvo nešto uradi jedan od službenika Sudske policije. To je nedopustivo i nije u skladu s našim kodeksom ponašanja, koji je jasan. Tačno je navedeno šta službenici mogu raditi i na koji način iskazivati svoje mišljenje. Ako interni postupak dokaže da je to tačno, snosit će odgovarajuće sankcije - kazao je Vehabović.

Nezapamćen slučaj u Sudskoj policiji FBiH

Vehabović je naveo da ovakav skandal još nije zabilježen u Sudskoj policiji FBiH.

- Nedopustivo je da se službenici druže s kriminogenim osobama, a kamoli da se poistovjećuju s ratnim zločincima. Kada imamo neprimjerenu komunikaciju između službenika, oni budu disciplinski kažnjeni. Za sada ne mogu reći kakve će sankcije Nedić snositi, jer je svaki slučaj za sebe. Do sada taj službenik nije imao nikakvih disciplinskih postupaka i cijenit će se sve okolnosti. U svakom slučaju, nije to trebao uraditi - kazao je Vehabović.

bit ce izjeo vuk magarca--kao i do sad mnogo puta--vec vidjeno od Olimpijaca pa na dalje

Tomahawk11 wrote:Samo da kazem da se Bakir prosipa samo tako!
Kakav komad govedine!

"Bakir Izetbegović, koji je i predsednik SDA, rekao je u večeras tokom pauze na sednici Glavnog odbora ove stranke, da Aleksandar Vučić, nema potrebe da se brine i da se ništa u BiH neće menjati nakon presude Radovanu Karadžiću."

Ovdje Bakir ispade garant opstanka RSa. Trebao je da kaže da se na tekovinama genocida ne može graditi suživot i pomirenje. Kada je SDP bio na vlasti, prigovaralo se da nema potreban i kvalitetan broj kadrova. Pa je li ovo što SDA najbolje zna i ima?

"Ako Vučić želi da pomogne BiH neka utiče na rukovodstvo u Republici Srpskoj da se popravi položaj i bezbednosti Bošnjaka u Republici Srpskoj. Imamo niz napada na Bošnjake, na džamije. Ugrožavaju se njihova prava i ne dozvoljava im se da njihova deca dobiju đačke knjižice u kojima piše Bosanski jezik", kazao je on.

"Eto mogao bi gospodin Vučić da utiče da se u jednom pozitivom smislu učine odnosi između Bošnjaka i Srba, rekao je Izetbegović i dodao da bi bilo dobro da svi iščitamo presudu Radovanu Karadžiću, da se suoče i u BiH i u Srbiji sa onim šta je bilo", rekao je Izetbegović, preneli su mediji u BiH.

Po ko zna koji put Bakir upućuje apel, da neko drugi rješava probleme Bošnjaka. Ovaj put radikalu Vučiću.
Kada god nije imao muda da reaguje na vrijeme, došlo je kasnije na naplatu, kao u slučaju "pokušaja linča" u Srebrenici gdje je trebao Vučiću da porući kako nije dobro došao. Sad mu u Srbiji to nabijaju na nos. Glede ustupaka HDZu, Čović se lijepo zahvalio mudrom šutnjom na presudu Karađžiću i šahovnicom na brdu.

Jos jedan od dokaza sa kim dijelimo radni i drugi prostor.

Kakve kazne ba.

Sami su na sebe uprli prstom.

@tandmand, tacno tako.
Bakirova reakcija je poput nekog dembelije u dubokom hladu, pa mu ono mrsko....de ti Vucicu....
A zapravo ga otvoreno poziva da se petlja i mijesa u BiH, odnosno RS. I da mirno spava, nece biti problema
Bake, Covic, Fahro....nastavi niz.
Joj, ko nama vedri i oblaci

.