Jasenovac book BANNED an April 10th


On April 10th, the day the Independent State of Croatia was born in 1941 to begin a state-mandated campaign of genocide against Serbs, Jews, and Romas, a U.S. judge, for the first time in Western history, issued (on behalf of Barry Lituchy) a permanent ban against a book containing testimonies of Holocaust/genocide survivors.

Below:

I.       Brief History of the Lawsuit

A. Initial demands of Lituchy, et al.

B. Demands in the Complaint

C. Claims in the Complaint

D. The lawsuit against Kingsborough

E. Preliminary Injunction

F. Settlement demands

G. Lituchy’s attacks

II.      Current Status

A. Appeal to the Second Circuit

III.     Who Won?

A. What Lituchy, et al. wanted (and lost)

B. Others have also “lost” in many ways

IV.     The Winners

V.      To JRI Directors/Lituchy Supporters

On Friday, April 10, 2009, Judge Brian M. Cogan issued a “Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction” in the copyright infringement suit filed by Memory Film Production (Memory), Jasenovac Research Institute (JRI), Aleksandar Mosic, and Antun Miletic against Petar Makara, Wanda Schindley (a/k/a Dallas Publishing), and Kingsborough Community College with the stated purpose of suppressing through injunction (and confiscating) all copies of Jasenovac: Proceedings of the First International Conference and Exhibit on the Jasenovac Concentration Camps (Proceedings Book), a book containing testimony of survivors of the Jasenovac death camps, by many accounts the third-largest and most brutal death camp in WWII Europe, a camp largely unknown to Western audiences.

I have not made public statements about this lawsuit for more than three years, not even a response to the libelous assaults on my personal and professional character and business, but have fought through the court, believing that justice would prevail. At this point, it has not, and I will no longer remain silent.

I.  BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAWSUIT

More than seven years after the 1997 First International Conference on Jasenovac, hosted and chaired by Dr. Bernard Klein, chairman of the history department at Kingsborough Community College, the Proceedings Book was published in time to be presented at the 60th anniversary commemorations of the April 22, 1945 break-out and survival of some of the last survivors of the Jasenovac death camps. Volunteers contributed work to the production and money for the printing costs, and a network of some 25 volunteer distributors, organized by Petar Makara, took the books to libraries, Holocaust centers, and researchers and sold a few with hopes of paying some of the costs of shipping and a second printing. Within a month, most of the 1,031 books had been distributed.

A.  Initial demands of Lituchy, et al.

Barry Lituchy, the financier and driving force behind the suit, engaged a lawyer to try to suppress the Proceedings Book, claiming he/JRI/Memory had exclusive rights to the material of the 1997 Conference and that the Proceedings Book infringed their copyrights. Lituchy, as a part-time lecturer at Kingsborough, had assisted Dr. Klein with the Conference and had solicited donations in the name of Kingsborough for translation work for the video version of the Conference. (Yet those translations and the pro bono contributions of professional videographer Vladimir Bibic, contributions Bibic made for the benefit of Jasenovac victims, were included in the Lituchy-Friendly Memory “business” enterprise.)

In July of 2005, Lituchy’s lawyer sent letters to Petar Makara and me demanding we stop distribution of the “infringing” book and collect all the books and send them along with any money from sales to Lituchy, et al. within one week, or a lawsuit would be filed. (Attachment A—threat letter). Petar and I could not possibly submit to such extortion.

I called the lawyer immediately and told him the proposed complaint was full of lies, that both Dr. Klein and Dr. Bulajic supported the publication of the Proceedings Book, that I had contributed my work pro bono and had not sold a single copy of the book or received any payment for my work, that neither Lituchy nor JRI had contributed any work or money to the book’s publication, that Vladimir Bibic had sent me his raw footage to use in preparing parts of the book and pulling stills of presenters, that I had no assets that were attachable under Texas law, that my husband was terminally ill, and that Lituchy was wasting his time to try to extort anything from me. Petar Makara and I also responded with letters (Attachment B).

I did not believe that a reputable lawyer would actually file the suit, but Petar, having been sued (along with three others) by Lituchy/JRI in a suit demanding $8.5 million for supposedly saying something “bad” about Lituchy, took the threat seriously. Petar was right. The suit was filed.

B. Demands in the Complaint

Lituchy et al. demanded confiscation of all copies of the Proceedings Book (to be destroyed, according to his lawyer), suppression of the book and further publication through injunction, enhanced statutory damages ($150,000 each) for Memory, Mosic, and (later) Miletic, attorney fees, costs, and unspecified damages to JRI for “breach of fiduciary duty.”

Apparently, the presumption was that Makara and I and (later) Kingsborough would simply settle and give Lituchy what he wanted—to confiscate and suppress all copies of the Proceedings Book and extort hundreds of thousands from defendants.

C.  Claims in the Complaint

While Lituchy/JRI claimed to represent the Jasenovac survivors who came to New York to tell their stories, in fact, the survivors and other researchers were outraged that he would claim rights to their stories and try to suppress the Proceedings Book. The President of the Belgrade survivors’ association wrote letters to the Court (Attachment C—also available in Serbian), and declarations of support were submitted by still-living survivors/presenters, including Dr. Klein and Dr. Bulajic. Several presenters who had given Lituchy/JRI “non-exclusive” permission in 2003 withdrew their permission.

Lituchy claimed the Proceedings Book had “substantive” errors and “falsified” history. When, after a court order, Lituchy finally produced the “error list,” the “falsification” turned out to be Dr. Klein’s and Dr. Bulajic’s stories about the origin of the Conference, etc. (Attachment D), and the “errors” in the Mosic paper were as Mosic had written it. (The documents will all be available later). Lituchy also claimed the book did not acknowledge him as the assistant coordinator of the conference and other silly claims.

D.  The lawsuit against Kingsborough

Lituchy, et al. then sued Kingsborough Community College (part of the CUNY system), claiming it had no right to “authorize” the publication of the proceedings of the 1997 conference on Jasenovac that had been hosted and chaired by Dr. Bernard Klein, chair of the history dept. (This was after Lituchy called Klein and asked him if he knew about the book and authorized it. Klein said “yes.”) Lituchy then called Jane Davis at the CUNY law department and threatened there would be more lawsuits from presenters, etc., and Davis, without checking with Dr. Klein, sent me an email demanding I withdraw the copyright, based on Lituchy’s incorrect “information.” Ultimately, Dr. Klein was not allowed to claim the book copyright. The college, now sued by Lituchy, et al., used the excuse that the book constituted a gift worth more than $10,000 and, consequently, required prior approval for acceptance. Dr. Klein, who had signed a declaration in support of the Book, was pressured to sign another declaration that he was not involved in the “production” of the book.

The frivolous suit against Kingsborough was withdrawn, and Lituchy, according to his lawyer, was fired from his job as a part-time lecturer at Kingsborough.

E.  Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction was awarded against the entire 416-page book on the basis of Mosic’s 5- and Miletic’s 7-page papers and without the required security in case the book was “wrongfully” banned. It was. (At the time, the claims were made on behalf of Memory/JRI/Lituchy against the entire book, and I did not think to offer to rip out Mosic’s and Miletic’s papers. Later, I filed a Motion to Vacate the Preliminary Injunction, and Judge Cogan simply threw it out in 5 days without having the other side respond.)

The banning of the Proceedings Book by a U.S. court both confused and enraged Jasenovac survivors and researchers on both sides of the Atlantic. Jasa Almuli, former president of the Belgrade Jewish Federation, and Cadik Danon, one of two now still-living survivors who testified at the Conference, fought desperately to have the banned book freed, and Smilja Tisma, President of the Belgrade association of survivors and descendants of survivors appealed to the Court to free the book (see Attachment C). Others, including Joe Friendly, tried to facilitate settlement of the case and freeing of the Book, but Lituchy persisted in demanding the suppression of the Book.

F.  Settlement demands

Makara, having been sued before by Lituchy and having spent tens of thousands for lawyers, settled without admitting wrongdoing to avoid paying tens of thousands more to lawyers. Lituchy’s lawyer then pressured me to settle—to pay money to Lituchy-JRI, to help produce a Lituchy-JRI book, and to help Lituchy-JRI get permissions from presenters (that Lituchy claimed to already have), etc. Lituchy’s lawyer then pressured me to get a lawyer, and when I refused and sent him proof that Dr. Klein authorized the Proceedings Book and that I had “declined” a JRI directorship and told him that Bibic had copyrighted his raw footage, he got off the case and passed it on to another lawyer, who, in turn, passed it on to yet another.

G.  Lituchy’s attacks

Lituchy sent a series of libelous emails, attacking Petar and me (and sometimes Dr. Bulajic) as “liars,” “thieves,” “criminals,” “racists,” “anti-Semites” (Petar’s wife is Jewish), “sexual blackmailers,” “forgers,” “perjurers,” “scam artists,” etc. who “stole $6,000,” etc. (Attachment E—Robert Oklejas’ response) I filed a separate libel suit citing 42 counts of libel and added to my countersuit libel charges against Lituchy-accomplices Milo Yelesiyevich, Mosic and Miletic, the later two for their libelous smears in Politika.

Lituchy provided misinformation to Mr. Mosic such as that Kingsborough sued me instead of that he sued Kingsborough. (At the time of Mr. Mosic’s 2006 deposition, he did not even know he was an individual plaintiff in the suit. Both he and Mr. Miletic admitted waiving their rights to a proceedings book when Dr. Bulajic asked them to prepare papers and come to the Conference and said their damages were caused after they filed suit by those who were furious they would join a suit to suppress testimony of Holocaust/genocide survivors (i.e., Mosic lost his position as Memorial director at the Belgrade Jewish Federation, and Miletic was attacked by former friends, one of whom threatened to “exterminate” him).

Lituchy attacked Vladimir Bibic, even leaving a message on his answering machine threatening to “sue” or “kill” him (Bibic) if he wrote an affidavit. (Bibic had filmed the conference and contributed, for the benefit of the Jasenovac survivors, the use of his film and his expertise to the making of the Memory Video Series of the 1997 Conference. Joe Friendly, another who filmed, and Barry Lituchy sold the Video Series in a “business” venture. Some seven years later, Friendly and Lituchy copyrighted the “camera recordings” in the Series (including Bibic’s contribution) and in a Preview Tape (exclusively Bibic’s footage) in their names under Memory Film Productions and then used Memory as the leading plaintiff in a copyright lawsuit, claiming Memory also had exclusive rights to the materials of the 1997 Conference.

Lituchy tried to intimidate Yovanka Malkovich, another witness who was prepared to testify, by having his lawyer send a letter to Yovanka’s employer with libelous accusations that she was using company resources in an obvious attempt to punish her and/or get her fired from her job, oddly enough with an employer who had donated $38,000 of her time to Kingsborough for translation work and voice-overs that ended up being used in the Lituchy-Friendly Memory Film “business” enterprise.

Lituchy threatened to sue some 25 volunteer distributors, apparently looking for others from whom to extort money, until the magistrate judge said that was out of the question.

Lituchy threatened to “follow” and “punish” me and make me “pay,” etc., apparently for defending myself in this lawsuit, and threatened to sue a JRI director who resigned after he had given a deposition and felt that he had been wrong to play along with Lituchy.

II.  CURRENT STATUS

After not producing any evidence of rights to the Proceedings Book or supporting damage claims in 3.5 years of litigation, Memory, Mosic, and Miletic withdrew the remaining claims just days before they were set to go to trial. In Judge Cogan’s Sept. 5, 2008 “Memorandum Decision and Order,” JRI, against existing law, was awarded a permanent injunction against the Proceedings Book on the grounds that I breached a “fiduciary duty” by proxy, through Bulajic and Makara, to JRI, and JRI/Lituchy should not have to compete with the Proceedings Book to sell the JRI/Lituchy book. The judge signed plaintiffs’ “order” (apparently without reading it as he later denied he granted JRI a permanent injunction). In the same order, he threw out the libel claims against Lituchy (stating, for instance, that I did not prove someone else did not commit “forgery”) and my countersuit (with libel and frivolous lawsuit claims).

In a “Final Judgement and Permanent Injunction,” Judge Cogan granted JRI permanent injunction against the book and Mosic and Miletic injunction against their papers.

A.  Appeal to the Second Circuit

I appealed the Court’s Sept. 5th order in its entirety and have amended the appeal with each new “order.” I am confident the appeals court or, if necessary, the Supreme Court will free the banned book as the injunction is not supported by existing law. (see Attachment F—Objections to plaintiffs proposed “Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction”)

III.  WHO WON?

A. What Lituchy, et al. wanted (and lost)

1.  Confiscation of all copies of the Proceedings Book. He lost. (I believe he only got the 14 or so copies extorted from Dr. Klein in the settlement of the suit against Kingsborough. Perhaps those are the books now for sale at a high price from used booksellers.)

2.  Suppression of the remaining 140 copies of the Proceedings Book. He won temporarily but gets to pay his Manhattan lawyers for perhaps another year or two to keep me from giving away 140 books until the injunction is overturned.

3.  $150,000 plus for enhanced statutory damages for “infringement” of Memory’s copyright. He lost. Memory withdrew the frivolous claim after having produced no evidence of exclusive rights to even a word in the Proceedings Book.

4.  $150,000 plus for enhanced statutory damages for “infringement” of Mosic’s copyright. He lost. Mosic withdrew the frivolous claim.

5.  $150,000 plus for enhanced statutory damages for “infringement” of Miletic’s copyright. He lost. Miletic withdrew the frivolous claim. (The Miletic copyright was fraudulent, anyway. Under U.S. law, the Belgrade Museum of Genocide, which commissioned the English translation as “work for hire,” could copyright the translation as “original work.”)

6.  Untold thousands for costs of the 3.5 years of litigation. He lost.

7.  Untold tens or hundreds of thousands for fees for his Manhattan lawyers. He lost.

8.  Untold thousands for JRI’s frivolous copyright infringement claim. He lost. (That frivolous claim was informally withdrawn during summary judgment oral arguments after having produced no evidence of a copyright to even one of the some 40 texts in the Proceedings Book.)

9.  An unspecified amount in damages for JRI’s “breach of fiduciary duty” claim. He lost.

10. Lituchy filed a lawsuit against Kingsborough/Dr. Klein, his employer, and lost his part-time job and the opportunity to be called, without a doctorate, „professor.“

B.  Others have also lost in many ways

1.  Supporters of the book—Jasenovac survivors, those who believed in the importance in educating the public about Jasenovac, those who believed in First Amendment rights to speech and publication, those who worked to free a book that was wrongfully and outrageously banned because Barry Lituchy could hire (perhaps with the help of some of you) Manhattan lawyers—have lost.

2.  Petar Makara, Dr. Klein (who in the last weeks of his life traveled to Banja Luka to attend the Fourth International Conference on Jasenovac and chair the International Commission on Jasenovac), Dr. Bulajic, Jasa Almuli, Smilja Tisma, Vladimir Bibic, and a host of others and I have lost time, money, and/or anguish and/or damage to health because of this pathological lawsuit. I have spent some $20,000 of scarce resources on six trips to New York, more than a dozen depositions, etc. and spent thousands of hours of time on my defense.

3.  Mr. Mosic and Mr. Miletic, Lituchy’s willing allies, have lost respect from former friends and have gained nothing.

4.  JRI directors have been countersued and deposed. If the appeals court reinstates my countersuit, they may be held personally liable as Michigan law, under which JRI was incorporated, does not have a “good faith” defense for directors of a nonprofit organization.

IV. THE WINNERS

Other than those who want to suppress the truth about Jasenovac, the winners are those who might be threatened by Lituchy in the future. Lituchy “won” control of JRI by using JRI to file suit against Robert Oklejas, the original incorporator of JRI, Petar Makara, Dusan Dragic, and Milan Bulajic, claiming they had said something to Dr. Klein to try to get him fired. (Dr. Klein told me no one did that.) Lituchy tried to extort money and a book to which he had no right with this lawsuit and has threatened to sue or sued at least ten people. However, I suspect he will think twice before filing suit against someone else.

Unfortunately, in American “justice,” having Manhattan lawyers counts for more than law and fact against a pro se (self-represented) defendant, especially when a “friendly” judge ignores law and fact on behalf of represented plaintiffs. However, I would still recommend that route to anyone else who might get sued by Lituchy-JRI.

V. TO JRI DIRECTORS/LITUCHY SUPPORTERS

For those JRI members who apparently put reason and law aside to follow Lituchy’s lead, my reason for countersuing you is because I hoped you would understand the importance of your role as a JRI director. The law mandates that you take your role seriously and do research to vote, not on personality but on fact and the best interest of the organization. I cannot imagine anyone who purports to have an interest in promoting education about Jasenovac who votes, for any reason, to censor a book that does just that. Even if Lituchy had had, though he did not, exclusive rights to all (or any) of the papers of the 1997 Conference, how could it be in the interest of education about Jasenovac to ban the second book published in America that contained first-hand testimony about Jasenovac? (The first book, Ilija Ivanovic’s Witness to Jasenovac’s Hell, was published by Dallas Publishing in 2002.)

JRI directors should, instead of being stooges for Lituchy, send the organization back to Robert Oklejas, the original incorporator, in Michigan to reform the organization into a legal organization that is not operated in the interest of Lituchy to file lawsuits to extort property and punish those who disagree with him but in the interest of, as former directors Oklejas, Bulajic, Makara, Dragic, Vitorovich, Jankovich, etc. had hoped it would be—educating the public about Jasenovac.

To misguided people who donated money to help Lituchy-JRI pay hundreds of thousands to Manhattan lawyers for the purpose of suppressing the Proceedings Book, how can you justify your actions even if Makara, Schindley, and Kingsborough were the most despotic in the world? You helped censor a book—not just any book but a book containing the words of precious Jasenovac survivors, several of whom died while their words were banned.

Wanda Schindley

ISTINA O KOSOVU

Istina sa Kosova,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7990984.stm

Adapt a Dog

If you want someone who will eat whatever you put in front of him
and never say its not quite as good as his mother’s


..then adopt a dog.

If you want someone always willing to go out, at any hour,
for as long and wherever you want …

..then adopt a dog.

If you want someone who will never touch the remote, doesn’t care
about football, and can sit next to you as you watch romantic movies

..then adopt a dog.

If you want someone who is content to get on your bed just to
warm your feet and whom you can push off if he snores

..then adopt a dog !

If you want someone who never criticizes what you do, doesn’t care
if you are pretty or ugly, fat or thin, young or old, who acts as if
every word you say is especially worthy of listening to, and loves
you unconditionally, perpetually ..

..then adopt a dog.

BUT, on the other hand, if you want someone who will never come
when you call, ignores you totally when you come home, leaves hair
all over the place, walks all over you, runs around all night and only
comes home to eat and sleep, and acts as if your entire existence
is solely to ensure his happiness .,
.
.


..then adopt a cat!

Now be honest, you thought I was gonna say… marry a man, didn’t you?

Send this to all the women you know to brighten their day.
Send this to all the men just to annoy them!


You…


….have a GREAT Day!!!


This message has been scanned by vsl mailsafe

Serb Demonization as Propaganda Coup Edward S. Herman | April 6, 2009 Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco

Serb Demonization as Propaganda Coup Edward S. Herman | April 6, 2009 Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco Email this page to a friend Comment on this article Foreign Policy In Focus http://www.fpif.org This is part of a strategic dialogue on Yugoslavia. See John Feffer’s opposing argument here, and their respective responses here. The successful demonization of the Serbs, making them largely responsible for the Yugoslav wars, and as unique and genocidal killers, was one of the great propaganda triumphs of our era. It was done so quickly, with such uniformity and uncritical zeal in the mainstream Western media, that disinformation had (and still has, after almost two decades) a field day. The demonization flowed from the gullibility of Western interests and media (and intellectuals). With Yugoslavia no longer useful as an ally after the fall of the Soviet Union, and actually an obstacle as an independent state with a still social democratic bent, the NATO powers aimed at its dismantlement, and they actively supported the secession of Slovenia, Croatia, the Bosnian Muslims, and the Kosovo Albanians. That these were driven away by Serb actions and threats is untrue: they had their own nationalistic and economic motives for exit, stronger than those of the Serbs. Milosevic’s famous speeches of 1987 and 1989 weren’t nationalistic — despite the lies to the contrary, both speeches called for tolerance of all „nations“ within Yugoslavia. He also never sought a „Greater Serbia,“ but rather tried to maintain a unified Yugoslavia, and when this failed — with the active assistance of the NATO powers — he tried, only fitfully, to allow stranded Serb minorities to stay within Yugoslavia or join Serbia, a matter of obvious „self-determination“ that NATO granted to Kosovo Albanians and everybody but Serbs (for documentation on these points, see this Monthly Review article I co-authored with David Peterson in October, 2007). Biased Reporting Many well-qualified observers of the Bosnia wars were appalled at the biased reporting and gullibility of mainstream journalists, who followed a party line and swallowed anything the Bosnian Muslim (and U.S.) officials told them. The remarkable inflation of claims of Serb evil and violence (and playing down of NATO-clients‘ violence), with fabricated „concentration camps,“ „rape camps,“ and similar Nazi- and Auschwitz-like analogies, caused the onetime head of the U.S. intelligence section in Sarajevo, Lieutenant Colonel John Sray, to state back in 1995 that America has not been so pathetically deceived since Robert McNamara helped to micromanage and escalate the Vietnam War…Popular perceptions pertaining to the Bosnian Muslim government…have been forged by a prolific propaganda machine. A strange combination of three major spin doctors, including public relations (PR) firms in the employ of the Bosniacs, media pundits, and sympathetic elements of the US State Department, have managed to manipulate illusions to further Muslim goals. Numerous others made the same point: Cedric Thornberry, a high UN official who investigated atrocities in Bosnia wrote in Foreign Policy in 1996 that By early 1993 a consensus developed — especially in the United States, but also in some Western European countries and prominently in parts of the international liberal media — that the Serbs were the only villains…This view did not correspond to the perceptions of successive senior UN personnel in touch with daily events..[and one kindly soul at UN headquarters] warned me to take cover — the fix is on. The same point was made by Canadian General Lewis Mackenzie, who insisted that „it was not a black-and-white picture and that ‚bad‘ buys had not killed ‚good‘ guys. The situation was far more complex“ (Globe & Mail, July 15, 2005). The same was said by former NATO Deputy Commander Charles Boyd, former UNPROFOR Commander Satish Nambiar, UN officials Philip Corwin and Carlos Martins Branco, and former U.S. State Department official George Kenney. But anybody who parted from the party line was ignored or marginalized. When George Kenney changed his mind from anti-Serb interventionist to critic, he was quickly dropped by the mainstream media. Journalist Peter Brock, who wrote „Dateline Yugoslavia: The Partisan Press,“ in Foreign Policy’s Winter 1993-1994 issue, which documented systematic bias and errors, was viciously attacked and driven into multi-year silence. A reporter like David Binder of The New York Times who refused to adhere to the party-demonization line was soon taken off the beat. An important part of the fix was dishonest demonization, as with the famous August 1992 picture of Fikret Alic, an emaciated prisoner behind barbed wire in a Serb „concentration camp.“ But the UK journalists had pushed forward a man who was sick and quite unrepresentative: the barbed wire was around the journalists, not the camp, and it was a transit camp, not a concentration camp. Western journalists went berserk over these alleged camps, but failed to report the Red Cross finding that „Serbs, Croats, and Muslims all run detention camps and must share equal blame.“ John Burns‘ Pulitzer for 1993 was based heavily on his interview with an alleged Serb killer-rapist, Borislav Herak, who later confessed that after torture he had recited lines forced on him by his Bosnian Muslim captors. The joint Pulitzer winner in 1993 was Roy Gutman, who specialized in hearsay evidence and handouts from Croatian and Bosnian Muslim propaganda sources. Gutman never got around to Croat and Muslim camps. His and other journalists‘ claims about „an archipelago of [Serb] sex-enslavement camps“ were spectacular and wrong — ultimately, there were more credible affidavits of Serb than Bosnian Muslim women rape victims. (For an excellent discussion of the wild news reports versus ascertainable facts, see Chapter Five of Peter Brock’s Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting [GM Books, 2005]). All these journalists portrayed the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegović as a devotee of ethnic tolerance; none ever quoted his Islamic Declaration, which proclaimed that „there is neither peace nor coexistence between the ‚Islamic religion‘ and non-Islamic social and political institutions.“ For an extensive discussion of Izetbegović’s close relations with Iran and commitment to an Islamic state, see John Schindler’s Unholy Terror (Zenith Press, 2007), which I reviewed in Z Magazine. Retaliation Another part of the fix was the failure to pay any attention to crimes that preceded brutal Serb actions. This was frequent, although there certainly were cases where the Serbs (mainly paramilitary forces) struck first. But the tit-for-tat was common and much of it, and many of the mutual fears, were traceable back to the mass murders — disproportionately of Serbs — of World War II, the Nazi occupation, and Croatian fascist Ustasha. This background of truly mass killing was blacked out in the mainstream propaganda system. Most important in recent tit-for-tat was the Srebrenica case, where the background to the Serb behavior in July 1995 was (and remains) ignored. You won’t read in the U.S. press the claim by veteran British journalist Joan Phillips that by March 31, 1993, „out of 9,300 Serbs who used to live (in the Srebrenica municipality), less than 900 remain…only three Serbian villages remain and around 26 have been destroyed.“ („Victims and Villains in Bosnia’s War,“ South Slav Journal, Spring-Summer 1992 — published in 1993). Many more were destroyed after that, and a 1995 Serb monograph entitled The Book of the Dead listed 3,287 Serbs from the Srebrenica region who were killed in the three years before July 1995. Serb forensic expert Dr. Zoran Stankovic and his team uncovered over a thousand Serb bodies in the Srebrenica area well before July 1995, and General Lewis Mackenzie has stated that „evidence to date suggests that he (Naser Oric, a Bosnian Muslim commander in Srebrenica) was responsible for killing as many Serb civilians outside Srebrenica as the Bosnian Serb army was for massacring Bosnian Muslims inside the town.“ Stankovic and the Serb authorities could never get the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) or Western media interested in these massacres. A microcosm of the bias of the ICTY can be seen in its treatment of Naser Oric. When a video turned up in 2005 showing an alleged Bosnian Serb execution of six Bosnian Muslims (its provenance and authenticity uncertain), this received widespread and indignant attention in the West, and was alleged to be a „smoking gun“ proving the 8,000 executed at Srebrenica. But there are more clearly authentic videos that Oric showed to Toronto Star journalist Bill Schiller and Washington Post reporter John Pomfret, in which Oric brags about the Serb killings and beheadings displayed for them, and claims to have killed 114 Serbs in just one of these incidents. Pomfret had a single back page article on this, Schiller two, and otherwise silence reigned. Nobody said this was a „smoking gun“ proving that Serb victimization in the Srebrenica area was massive and that the supposed „demilitarization“ of that „safe area“ was a fraud. There was no comment when it took the ICTY till 2002 to indict Oric, charging him not with killing but failure to control his subordinates in six cases, and ultimately throwing out the case on a technicality. The ICTY never took evidence from Schiller or Pomfret, and failed to use the videos they had seen as part of the evidence. The ICTY also failed to take the evidence of Ibran Mustafic, a Bosnian Muslim official in Srebrenica, who in his recent book, Planned Chaos, declares Oric to be „a war criminal without par,“ and describes personally observed gruesome murders by Oric. French General Philippe Morillon, was also not called, although he had testified in the Milosevic trial, claiming that Oric „took no prisoners,“ and that his mass killings from the „safe area“ had been the key factor in explaining Serb vengefulness in their takeover of Srebrenica. The ICTY wasn’t an instrument of justice — it was a faux-judicial arm of NATO, created to service its aims in the Balkan wars, which it did in numerous ways. But a key role was to focus on, demonize, isolate and condemn Serbs, who were the NATO target. Whenever NATO needed a lift, the ICTY was there to help — indicting Karadzic and Mladic explicitly to remove them as negotiators at Dayton; indicting Milosevic in May 1999 just as NATO was starting to draw criticism for its bombing of Serbian civilian facilities (war crimes). For crushing analyses of the ICTY and its role, see Travesty by John Laughland (Pluto Press, 2007) and Michael Mandel’s How America Gets Away with Murder (Pluto Press, 2004). Inflated Killings Inflating Serb killings was institutionalized early in the Yugoslavia conflict, crucially helped by media and liberal-left gullibility. There was huge dependence on Bosnian Muslim and U.S. officials, who lied often, but were never doubted by the press. In the case of the infamous Markale Market massacre on August 27, 1993, timed just before a NATO meeting at which bombing the Serbs was approved, key experts and observers on the scene — UK, French, Canadian, UN, even U.S. — were convinced that this was carried out by the Bosnian Muslims. But this could make no headway in the mainstream media. The Bosnian Muslims claimed 200,000 dead by early 1993 (and of course, exclusively Serb concentration and rape camps) and it was swallowed, along with the alleged drive for a „Greater Serbia.“ The same inflation took place regarding Kosovo both before and after the bombing war, with an alleged pre-war genocide and a more wildly claimed bombing-war genocide (with the State Department estimating as many as 500,000 Kosovo Albanians murdered). These were all big lies. The 200,000 (later, up to 300,000) has shrunk to 100,000, including about 65,000 civilians, on all sides in Bosnia. The prewar Kosovo toll was diminished to some 2,000 in the year before the bombing, a majority of them victims of the KLA rather than the Serbs (according to British Defense Secretary George Robertson), and the body-plus-missing total for Kosovo during the bombing war contracted to some 6,000-7,000 on all sides. But there were neither apologies nor reassessment from the mainstream media or liberal apologists for the „good war.“ They still have Srebrenica. But like the other inflated or untrue elements of the demonization process, they have it by cheating. There’s no doubt that there were executions at Srebrenica, but nothing like 8,000 and very possibly not any more than the number of Serb civilians killed by Naser Oric in the Srebrenica areas, as suggested by General Lewis Mackenzie (who in my opinion was conservative on this point). The morality tale rests heavily on failure to acknowledge that Srebrenica wasn’t a demilitarized „safe area“ but a protected Bosnian Muslim military base that had been used to decimate the local Serb population. It also rests on the failure to see that the massacre was immensely useful, like the Markale Market massacre, with the hope and expectation that it would produce a NATO military response. Bosnian Muslim leaders were crying „genocide“ even before the Serbs captured Srebrenica. It also rests on numbers manipulation. There were only about 2,000 bodies found near Srebrenica after intense searches over the next six years, not all Bosnian Muslims and those that were not necessarily executed. There had been intense fighting outside Srebrenica, but it was convenient for numbers inflation that these deaths could be ignored and any „missing“ could be assumed executed. The idea that the Serbs moved several thousand bodies en masse has never been plausible: Trucking them would have been easily caught by satellite surveillance — no such pictures have been produced — and some of the alleged new graves were closer to Srebrenica than the alleged places of removal. The belated grave findings after the year 2000 have been under the control of the Bosnian Muslim leadership, which has provided disinformation from 1992 on a very consistent basis. Their post-2000 findings and DNA identifications have been further compromised by their very unscientific handling of the body remains (in the ground five or more years), their inability to distinguish between bodies killed in fighting and executed, or those that may have died before or after 1995, and their frequent timing to reinforce political events. The continuous publicity over Srebrenica, like its initial surge, has been hugely political — this selective and inflated victimization has political payoffs for the victims and their patrons, along with psychological rewards in inflicting pain on longstanding enemies and targets. And in this case, the imperial rulers aren’t only able to point to an allegedly justified „humanitarian intervention“ to help cover over their larger plans in a global projection of power, but they have been able to transform the Balkans into a staging ground for NATO’s post-Cold war expansionist order. Edward S. Herman, Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, is the author of many books on economics, foreign policy, and the media, including Degraded Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis (with Philip Hammond, eds., Pluto, 2000).

Serbia to seek extradition of Nazi suspect from US 13 April, 2009 BELGRADE

Serbia to seek extradition of Nazi suspect from US 13 April, 2009 BELGRADE, Serbia (AP) — Serbia will seek the extradition of a naturalized American who allegedly served in a Nazi unit that killed about 17,000 civilians during World War II, the Balkan country’s war crimes prosecutor said Monday. Peter Egner, 87, who was born in Yugoslavia, is now living in a retirement community in Bellevue, Washington. U.S. authorities are trying to revoke his citizenship, a move that would pave the way for his extradition to Serbia. War crimes prosecutor Vladimir Vukcevic said his investigators have gathered information about Egner in order to try him in Serbia. Vukcevic met with Serbian Jewish community leaders and told them he will seek Egner’s extradition once the legal procedure of revoking his American citizenship is completed. Egner has been trying to stop the U.S. federal government’s efforts. He has denied the accusations, claiming he knows nothing about the Einsatzgruppe, a Nazi-run Serbian police unit that rounded up Jews, political prisoners and other enemies of the Third Reich in the wake of Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1940s. He emigrated to the U.S. in 1960 and received citizenship in 1966. The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit in July to revoke his citizenship, saying he failed to disclose details from his past on his naturalization application. The Justice Department, citing Nazi documents, has said that in 1941 Egner’s unit executed 11,164 people — mostly Serbian Jewish men, suspected communists and Gypsies — and in 1942 killed 6,280 Serbian Jewish women and children by gassing them with carbon monoxide in a specially designed van. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRW5wxgZmTM6lbenw_F7cNcWvHgQD97HMHP80