http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060311/ap_on_re_eu/milosevic_2 Kind of falls under the Jeffrey Dahmer category of "I'm not going to be shedding any tears." It will be interesting to see if he offed himself or if someone gave him a hand.
You wonder how he was given the opportunity to do this. I'd like to think he was under constant watch.
The Washington Post is being told - and then telling its readers - that a tribunal pres officer told the Post that Milosevic "apparently died of natural causes." Now that may well be the case, but I'm not sure anything can be "apparent" just yet.
Precisely this; that some press officer telling some intermediary to the Washington Post anything at this point other than "the man is dead" is pure speculation. "Apparent" assumes at least some assessment, otherwise you say "don't know"; if there was at least some assessment, it wasn't done by the ********ing press officer; give us the words, or the quote, of that qualified person. This is just indicative of the slop journalism we get daily. I'm being probably picky in some respects, I know, but I'm teaching a Sport and the Media class, and we're all - students and myself - really focused in on the language chosen in various "stenography for power," and how it differs from the minimum investigative journalism, and what that means for the reader in a 24/7/365 media turnover environment...
Fair enough. I've been doing some reading on the Noam Chomsky/Diana Johnstone/Jared Israel school of Srebrenica-denial/pro-Milosevic school of 'thought,' so I'm little trigger happy right now. Sorry to jump the gun on you.
No that would do it; it's all good. You might want to also read this with regard to such claims of Chomsky...
I've read that already. I've read the other parts of the exchange itself. I've also read interviews with Johnstone, Chomsky, and the other parties involved. I'm sorry, but ZNEt is a very unreliable and biased source on this particular issue. Bottom line--Johnstone wrote a ridiculous book claiming that the massacre at Srebrenica was not what it clearly was. Chomsky defeneded her right to say this, but he also said--in no uncertain terms--that her work was good reporting. That Chomsky can consider a book that ignores well-documented facts, and clearly sides with the ridiculous propadanda churned out by racist ultra-nationalists to be 'well researched' should disgust you at least as much as the misquote in The Guardian. ******** him. He has written about the NATO war in Kosovo and other issues in Bosnia as well, so it's not as if Chomsky didn't already have a history of countering what HE considers to be reflexively anti-Serb Western media coverage. So this Johnstone/Srebrenica spat was NOT out of character for him. Sometimes the truth IS simple. Sometimes the things ARE the way they seem. And, amazingly enough, sometimes the mainstream media are NOT involved in a plot to further Western hegemony. Media coverage in Bosnia was often over-simplified and sensationalist, but it was very rarely dishonest. I would suggest the Chomsky and Johnstone and company should talk to David Rohde if they are really interested in the truth. Sorry for the rant--this isn't directed at you, Mel. Give me half an excuse to lecture on Bosnia, and I'm going to take it!
I was sorta hoping that he would live a long painful life. Oh well, I'm not really broken up about it.
Yeah I just fired you back, while also getting caught up my own disgust that PSG could only draw with Nancy... To those posting here celebrating death/damnation, etc., I'm not sure about that. That is, I'm not sure we should ever be happy that the rule of law, and legit proceedings, don't get a chance to fully expose discredited, murderous ways of thinking. The man died, but I'd rather he lived and was fully discredited among his adherents, through a process they could witness, then to die and still not be convicted. I wanted conviction; free, world-opinion-ed, refutation of his way of being in the world...codified and institutionalized alongside Nuremberg as precedent. Now, we won't get that, and that way of being in the world, not FULLY refuted, retains some - albeit marginal - currency, alongside potential martyrism. We've seen that dynamic before. I know we'd like to say "Well, whoever is looking at this man's acts and decisions and backing them is less than human anyway, and wouldn't be swayed by legal proceedings," we ought to remember that in terms of humanity this reflects US in best practice, and holds out hope for others to come to the table, imv.
This is exactly the way I feel. Now we won't be able to carve "CONVICTED WAR CRIMINAL" on his tombstone for eternity. Dammit.
The day before he died, he said to his lawyer he was being poisoned. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new...5_RTRUKOC_0_UK-WARCRIMES-MILOSEVIC-POISON.xml
I think we should let these guys off themselves the day after they are captured. Save a lot of money. We can take sworn statements from the victims to create a historical record.
I'm with Mel up to the point where he likes other reporters because they infer different things that the washington post infers. Sometime read a news article you like then re-read it again without reading "what the reporter said". Just read the quotes. I think you'll soon see that just about every journalist is a creative writer trying to get out. Then think about how they all cooperate in the "storification" of the news. Each reporter has heros and vilians and a plot that hasn't quite yet reached its climax. "Milosevic Found Dead in his Cell" is all that is known to be true right now but that's a news headline. Not a news story.
You presume that his supporters would accept both the legitimacy of the court/trial & a guilty verdict?