The Ultimate War Crime
Home ] Up ] suckers ] Why Albaninas Fled ] Economic terrorism ] Proclamation ] Montenegro Goverment Delemna ] Kosovo Commission ] March 2000: Kosovo One Year Later ] Ethnical Aspects on NATO ] Ethnic Cleansing ] Europe`s Plan to Control the Balkans ] Comparison between Clinton and Hitler ] Americans are learning to accept War Crimes ] Serbs and Roma Flee KLA Terror in Kosovo ] NATO Learns for Whom It Has Won a War ] What do we do next? Massacre Serbs ] When Others Converted, Serbs Didn`t ] Who Won and Who Lost ] NATO vs UN ] Crisis in the Atlantic Alliance ] UN Security Council Draft Resolution ] Serbs Withdraw under UN Resolution ] Did the Serbs Lose (NATO view) ] NATO and Russia Breakthrough ] A Truly Heroic Resistance ] Refusing to Rebuild Bombed Infrastracture ] Escorting KLA into Kosovo ] Indicator of a Future Plan ] Resolution 1244 ] [ The Ultimate War Crime ] Who Will Punish NATO? ] NATO Complicit in Ethnic Cleansing of Serbs ] Tyranny to Kosovo Albanians ] Attacks by Albanians Intensifying ] 100,000 Dead Kosovars ] KFOR & UN Legalization of Anarchy ]


europeS.jpg (4853 bytes)
US troops out of Europe!
Why Albaninas Fled
Economic terrorism
Montenegro Goverment Delemna
Kosovo Commission
March 2000: Kosovo One Year Later
Ethnical Aspects on NATO
Ethnic Cleansing
Europe`s Plan to Control the Balkans
Comparison between Clinton and Hitler
Americans are learning to accept War Crimes
Serbs and Roma Flee KLA Terror in Kosovo
NATO Learns for Whom It Has Won a War
What do we do next? Massacre Serbs
When Others Converted, Serbs Didn`t
Who Won and Who Lost
Crisis in the Atlantic Alliance
UN Security Council Draft Resolution
Serbs Withdraw under UN Resolution
Did the Serbs Lose (NATO view)
NATO and Russia Breakthrough
A Truly Heroic Resistance
Refusing to Rebuild Bombed Infrastracture
Escorting KLA into Kosovo
Indicator of a Future Plan
Resolution 1244
The Ultimate War Crime
Who Will Punish NATO?
NATO Complicit in Ethnic Cleansing of Serbs
Tyranny to Kosovo Albanians
Attacks by Albanians Intensifying
100,000 Dead Kosovars
KFOR & UN Legalization of Anarchy


Highly recommended articles:
+ This is the News
+ Bar Too High For Serbs to Comply
+ Why New World Order Hates Serbs
+ New Roman Empire

+A Truly Heroic Resistance
+Theory of American Stupidity
+Last Free People in Europe

TVonFire2_small.jpg (2904 bytes)
of the Belgrade Coup

Editor & Webmaster
Leon Chame - 2008

Yugoslav Associates:
- Zoran Radojicic
- Dejan Vukelic
- George Orwell

Contributing Websites:
- Original Sorces
- Transnational (TFF)
- Fair sources


avgust 20, 2008

















Ultimate War Crime
That is the triumph which has been achieved.

In my country, my president, my secretary of state assured the Serbs and the rest of the world that if they did not comply with our orders to them, we would bomb them and we would bomb them until they would give up, and this has occurred.

The Serbs did not comply immediately. When we said "jump," they did not jump; therefore, we have bombed them for almost three months. I think the current statistics are something like 35,000 airplane sorties and something like 20- 25,000 bombs have been dropped on Serbia. Now you have to congratulate all the NATO powers because this was quite a demonstration. Of course the Serbs and the Yugoslavs did not have great anti-aircraft defences that would reach up to 30,000 feet; therefore, with these heroic sorties we ultimately accomplished what we sought to do, although it was not quite as comprehensive and complete as represented.

We maintained throughout the splendid diplomatic posture of holding a non-negotiable position. In other words, whatever we told the Serbs to do we would not vary from one inch. Bombing itself was represented to be a demonstration of credibility. Now the American authors of this campaign actually in personal terms lacked some credibility but that's neither here nor there. The bombing campaign itself proved to be credible and, of course, I regard that as a great success.

What have we accomplished? What is this triumph? The triumph, in my judgment, is to undermine the UN Charter; destroy a substantial part of the Nuremberg judgments directed at Nazi war criminals; and reduce an imperfect international law to something more closely resembling anarchy and the use of untrammeled power. NATO, which was originally conceived to be a defensive alliance under the umbrella of the Security Council of the U.N., has been transformed into an instrument for aggression and that is my primary thesis.

The thing that I find particularly offensive to this campaign is that I am a citizen of the United States and it's being done in my name. I object to that. I just don't have the characteristics used to describe a "good German." A "good German," for those of you who do not know what>the expression means, was someone who did whatever his government told him to do. Why do I say that this war is essentially, from the standpoint of law, a criminal enterprise? Because when the Nazis were tried at Nuremberg, the primary count was launching a war of aggression against their neighbors: invading Poland, invading Belgium, Holland, invading France, invading Norway, invading Denmark, invading, amongst other countries, Yugoslavia where their opponents were the Serbs, invading Greece. I don't want to go through the whole list because it's even longer.

But why were they charged? At that time they were defenders of the defendants who said well, war has been the experience of the human species since almost its inception. Well, the Germans had, among other things, signed a treaty in 1928 called, it was the Pact of Paris - along with about 75 other countries of the world including all the major powers. In that instrument, which Canada and the United States signed as well, the countries involved, represented that they would renounce war as an instrument of policy and you can match that up against the bombing campaign as see whether that pledge was honoured. The Germans as well as the Western powers have entered into a series of non-aggression treaties from time to time, which are essentially repudiated by this act.

The tribunal at Nuremberg - which was not a tribunal; it was a four-power court - held that the ultimate crime in international law, the ultimate war crime, is launching an unprovoked attack upon another state, another country. What is "unprovoked?" "Unprovoked" means when the other country has not attacked you, when it's not a defensive war - a defensive war under the Charter is permissible - but obviously Yugoslavia or Serbia has not gone outside its borders to attack anybody, never did at any point in the last 10 years. So, you read the classic definition of what is a war of aggression and this in the opinion of the tribunal, as I said, was the supreme crime. In other words, that launching a war carries with it every crime that may be committed in that war. That's what war is basically. It happens to be a sanction essentially of criminal activity inherently.

The UN Charter actually does not even give the Security Council the power to intervene in any state's domestic affairs. There are provisions in the Charter - Article 2, Sections 4 and 7, which prohibit interference in the domestic jurisdiction of any state; which prohibit the threat of military force; which prohibit the use of military force. Now on what basis could the U.N. act? It would have to be if you had a state of affairs, which truly threatened peace. That COULD arise out of a civil war but there is no provision in the UN Charter, which says, 'any country may invade any other country to uphold what it represents to be human rights.' There just is no such a provision. There is no treaty, which provides that. The United States was one of the authors of the UN>Charter and it insisted on veto-power for the major powers in the Security Council. This was a characteristic of the Security Council which we wanted - so did the Soviets - for self-protection. In other words we could not be attacked in the Security Council over our veto. So this was the procedure set up.

NATO was created, as I said, as a defensive alliance but if you look at the treaty terms, it purports to be totally under the U.N. It's a defensive alliance subject to the control and oversight of the Security Council of the U.N. Obviously in this attack, which has always been labeled NATO, and which I regard as primarily American (and I regret to say that), the Security Council was deliberately bypassed. Now, you say, that's because we might have run into a veto on bombing. Yes, we might have, and that was the conception of the U.N - the U.N. essentially required that there be no veto with respect to military action. And we might have had that.

We never explored non-military means. In fact we didn't even utilize at the outset a pretext of humanitarian violations in the Kosovo case. That was batted around at some length with respect to Bosnia, but at the outset of the Kosovo crisis when the KLA [Kosovo Liberation Army], labeled by the United States earlier as a terrorist organization, was murdering Serb policemen and Serb officials in Kosovo - and let me say that I am not inherently pro-Serb or anti-Albanian but these are the facts - at that time the grounds on which the United States urged action to solve this situation were not widespread human-rights violations, it was a somewhat preposterous reading of history to the effect that (and I remember a speech by President Clinton along these lines), to the effect that the Balkans were always a source of all the world wars and we had to step in to make sure that they weren't troublesome. We would determine what would happen there.

The humanitarian violations, or alleged humanitarian violations, in effect followed the bombing; they were not the basis on which the bombing was undertaken. There was virtually no expulsion of Albanians; there were no murders, except essentially murders by the KLA of Serb policemen, 5 or 10 at a time in ambushes, which furnished the pretext for this military invasion.

So, why the military invasion? I have a lot of trouble explicating the reasons. For some reason, which is not clear to me ever since the Yugoslavian civil war began, we adopted essentially an anti-Serbian position everywhere. Why there should be this hostility to the Serbs, I do not know, but this very quickly became something else. We were going to determine the conditions under which this country would live thereafter and this will, the "triumph of will" of Ms. Riefenstahl statement, is to me what is really involved.

Now this triumph involves the shredding to me of international law. It involves substituting anarchy for an imperfect system of international law. It avoided any diplomatic negotiations of any kind between the NATO aggressors and the Yugoslav government.

All our demands were non-negotiable and that to me is the key element of the situation. What does "non-negotiable" mean? It means you do as we say or we'll bomb you. And we'll bomb you endlessly and of course our bombs are not perfectly accurate so we will kill a certain number of civilians. We know that. We'll bomb bridges; we'll bomb factories; we'll bomb sanitariums; we'll bomb hospitals; we'll bomb roads; we'll bomb waterways; we'll bomb electric plants; we'll bomb your country out of existence.

That is the triumph which has been achieved.