Does Milosevic Insult His Public? Milosevic's cross examination examined
Day 129
Does Milosevic Insult His Public? Milosevic's cross examination examined
Day 129
Milosevic is not a fan of closed court sessions. It likely does not stem from his deep respect for human rights and civil liberties, given his record of show trials against the media when he was President of the FRY. At the ICTY, private sessions impede his ability to make his case, since he is making his case to the public, not the judges.
Cross examining witness C-061 must be incredibly frustrating for Milosevic, since the Trial Chamber routinely closes the session to the public to protect the witness's identity. Milosevic's frustration was evident by the fourth day of cross examination when he repeatedly made disparaging comments about C-061 and his testimony, despite increasingly terse admonitions from Presiding Judge Richard May.
At one point, Milosevic read out a string of statistics about the budget of the Republika Srpska Krajina (RSK) at a time when the witness was not in government. When C-061 replied that he could answer if asked about 1994 or 1995, Milosevic responded, 'You have no clue.' Judge May interrupted angrily, 'It is not fair to put a string of figures to the witness and say he has no clue and you know it!' Only a few moments before, Judge May reprimanded the accused for saying that C-061 was 'following instructions' in formulating his answers.
Later, when Milosevic commented to the witness, 'You've said a lot of contradictory things,' Judge May interrupted to instruct him: 'Your comments on the evidence don't assist the Court. You no doubt do it for your own purposes. It is not fair to the witness.' Despite his legal background and nine months of recent instruction, Milosevic has yet to learn cross examination skills which might demonstrate specific contradictions in the witness's testimony. He remains more comfortable with name-calling and conclusory statements. They don't require much thought – on the part of the speaker or his audience.
Milosevic also lapsed into speech-making, despite being lectured for nine months that it is not appropriate cross examination. Several times, Judge May broke into the accused's long harangues and formed questions from them which the Judge then put to the witness. It didn't deter Milosevic, who, true to his promise, seeks to use every opportunity to relate his version of reality, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the case against him.
Another improper device Milosevic uses is reading out letters from friends and colleagues who comment on the evidence given in court. These letters are not sworn testimony, they are not authenticated, they are not evidence, though Milosevic treats them as if they are. On every occasion when Milosevic has produced such a communication, Judge May has told him he may only use the letter as a basis for questioning the witness. 'We don't want the comments of your correspondents. You can put to the witness that the conversation [between Stanisic, Kertes, Mikelic and others about oil revenues] never took place.' As Judge May pointed out, it is not proper to read the entire letter. The accused may read or summarize a sentence or two for the purpose of questioning the witness's testimony, e.g. 'Mr. Mikelic says no such meeting ever took place. Do you still maintain that it did?' However the witness answers, what Mr. Mikelic is alleged to have said or written is not evidence. Milosevic can call Mikelic when he presents his case.
Witness C-061 testified on direct examination that Milosevic, through his de facto control over the National Bank of Yugoslavia, assisted the RSK financially with loans and transfers of funds. In cross examination, Milosevic, a former banker, disputed that characterization of the banking transactions, claiming the RSK merely used the Bank as any other state entity would. C-061 stuck to his position, 'It functioned as a component of the unified system of Yugoslavia.' In frustration, Milosevic retorted, 'I just explained it is not the way you describe!' At which point, Judge May intervened, 'He's entitled to give his opinion. Your comments are of no assistance.' Not to be deterred, Milosevic pressed his point, 'You are right, Mr. May. The witness has the right not to know something, but he doesn't have the right to lie.' Returning to Cross Examination 101, Judge May pointed out, 'That is a matter for us . . . [to decide] between what you assert and the evidence he gives.'
The distinction between what he asserts and the evidence given by a witness continues to escape Milosevic. He seems unaware that his statements will only be considered evidence if he takes an oath to tell the truth.
Aside from his improper cross examination and treatment of the witness, Milosevic offered some legitimate challenges to his testimony. C-061 testified on direct examination that the commanders of the local territorial defense (TO) and police in Krajina were JNA officers, sent at the direction of the accused. Milosevic's questioning put forward the alternative theory that any JNA officers were either retired or they volunteered for service in the Krajina. It is at least a plausible explanation for the fact that JNA officers commanded local units, rather than a personal insult. Witness C-061 responded that though they offered themselves as volunteers, they arrived with a decision from General Kadijevic, Federal Secretary for National Defense, and all TO units were subordinated to the JNA in combat operations.
Milosevic attempted to make much of C-061's change of position from the early 1990s to today. On direct examination, the witness admitted that he'd believed in and followed Milosevic's policy that the constitutional right of self-determination applied to nations not republics. Therefore, Serbs in Croatia had a right to live in the same state as other Serbs. He'd become disillusioned, he said in answer to an earlier question by Judge Kwon, 'Today I think differently because such a notion was ethno-egoistic. It led to interethnic confrontation, conflict and war and all the horrors that occurred in the war. The thesis was fatal for the peoples of Yugoslavia. That is my opinion today.' Milosevic commented, 'A stand cannot be principled at one time and not at another.' The witness disagreed, repeating that he now sees the end result was disastrous for Serbs and Croats.
The accused also questioned C-061 about his explanation of one of the 'lightly coded' intercepted telephone calls between Radovan Karadzic and Brazo Kertes. In it, the two speak about the need for high quality goods and the need to speak to the 'Commodities Manager' about their delivery. C-061 said the goods were weapons and the manager was Milosevic. On cross examination Milosevic obtained the witness's agreement that Serbia supplied actual goods to the Krajina, such as food, medicines, and other supplies. He then asked, 'What terms were used for blankets, oil, sugar, medicine and other things we sent? If 'flour' was used for 'ammunition,' what was used for 'flour'?' C-061 responded, ''Flour' was called 'flour'.' He pointed out that 'batteries' was used to mean 'weapons.'
Whether or not Milosevic was successful in challenging C-061 on these points, the line of cross examination was appropriate. It shows he knows what is proper and what is not. When court is closed to the public, however, it reduces his time to address his public – and he is left to challenge the witness (and the prosecution's case) only before the judges. While they will decide his fate under the law, to Milosevic his public remains the final arbiter of his historical destiny. For them, he appears to consider name calling and derogatory comments persuasive. It remains to be seen whether they are as ignorant as he thinks they are.
Cross examining witness C-061 must be incredibly frustrating for Milosevic, since the Trial Chamber routinely closes the session to the public to protect the witness's identity. Milosevic's frustration was evident by the fourth day of cross examination when he repeatedly made disparaging comments about C-061 and his testimony, despite increasingly terse admonitions from Presiding Judge Richard May.
At one point, Milosevic read out a string of statistics about the budget of the Republika Srpska Krajina (RSK) at a time when the witness was not in government. When C-061 replied that he could answer if asked about 1994 or 1995, Milosevic responded, 'You have no clue.' Judge May interrupted angrily, 'It is not fair to put a string of figures to the witness and say he has no clue and you know it!' Only a few moments before, Judge May reprimanded the accused for saying that C-061 was 'following instructions' in formulating his answers.
Later, when Milosevic commented to the witness, 'You've said a lot of contradictory things,' Judge May interrupted to instruct him: 'Your comments on the evidence don't assist the Court. You no doubt do it for your own purposes. It is not fair to the witness.' Despite his legal background and nine months of recent instruction, Milosevic has yet to learn cross examination skills which might demonstrate specific contradictions in the witness's testimony. He remains more comfortable with name-calling and conclusory statements. They don't require much thought – on the part of the speaker or his audience.
Milosevic also lapsed into speech-making, despite being lectured for nine months that it is not appropriate cross examination. Several times, Judge May broke into the accused's long harangues and formed questions from them which the Judge then put to the witness. It didn't deter Milosevic, who, true to his promise, seeks to use every opportunity to relate his version of reality, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the case against him.
Another improper device Milosevic uses is reading out letters from friends and colleagues who comment on the evidence given in court. These letters are not sworn testimony, they are not authenticated, they are not evidence, though Milosevic treats them as if they are. On every occasion when Milosevic has produced such a communication, Judge May has told him he may only use the letter as a basis for questioning the witness. 'We don't want the comments of your correspondents. You can put to the witness that the conversation [between Stanisic, Kertes, Mikelic and others about oil revenues] never took place.' As Judge May pointed out, it is not proper to read the entire letter. The accused may read or summarize a sentence or two for the purpose of questioning the witness's testimony, e.g. 'Mr. Mikelic says no such meeting ever took place. Do you still maintain that it did?' However the witness answers, what Mr. Mikelic is alleged to have said or written is not evidence. Milosevic can call Mikelic when he presents his case.
Witness C-061 testified on direct examination that Milosevic, through his de facto control over the National Bank of Yugoslavia, assisted the RSK financially with loans and transfers of funds. In cross examination, Milosevic, a former banker, disputed that characterization of the banking transactions, claiming the RSK merely used the Bank as any other state entity would. C-061 stuck to his position, 'It functioned as a component of the unified system of Yugoslavia.' In frustration, Milosevic retorted, 'I just explained it is not the way you describe!' At which point, Judge May intervened, 'He's entitled to give his opinion. Your comments are of no assistance.' Not to be deterred, Milosevic pressed his point, 'You are right, Mr. May. The witness has the right not to know something, but he doesn't have the right to lie.' Returning to Cross Examination 101, Judge May pointed out, 'That is a matter for us . . . [to decide] between what you assert and the evidence he gives.'
The distinction between what he asserts and the evidence given by a witness continues to escape Milosevic. He seems unaware that his statements will only be considered evidence if he takes an oath to tell the truth.
Aside from his improper cross examination and treatment of the witness, Milosevic offered some legitimate challenges to his testimony. C-061 testified on direct examination that the commanders of the local territorial defense (TO) and police in Krajina were JNA officers, sent at the direction of the accused. Milosevic's questioning put forward the alternative theory that any JNA officers were either retired or they volunteered for service in the Krajina. It is at least a plausible explanation for the fact that JNA officers commanded local units, rather than a personal insult. Witness C-061 responded that though they offered themselves as volunteers, they arrived with a decision from General Kadijevic, Federal Secretary for National Defense, and all TO units were subordinated to the JNA in combat operations.
Milosevic attempted to make much of C-061's change of position from the early 1990s to today. On direct examination, the witness admitted that he'd believed in and followed Milosevic's policy that the constitutional right of self-determination applied to nations not republics. Therefore, Serbs in Croatia had a right to live in the same state as other Serbs. He'd become disillusioned, he said in answer to an earlier question by Judge Kwon, 'Today I think differently because such a notion was ethno-egoistic. It led to interethnic confrontation, conflict and war and all the horrors that occurred in the war. The thesis was fatal for the peoples of Yugoslavia. That is my opinion today.' Milosevic commented, 'A stand cannot be principled at one time and not at another.' The witness disagreed, repeating that he now sees the end result was disastrous for Serbs and Croats.
The accused also questioned C-061 about his explanation of one of the 'lightly coded' intercepted telephone calls between Radovan Karadzic and Brazo Kertes. In it, the two speak about the need for high quality goods and the need to speak to the 'Commodities Manager' about their delivery. C-061 said the goods were weapons and the manager was Milosevic. On cross examination Milosevic obtained the witness's agreement that Serbia supplied actual goods to the Krajina, such as food, medicines, and other supplies. He then asked, 'What terms were used for blankets, oil, sugar, medicine and other things we sent? If 'flour' was used for 'ammunition,' what was used for 'flour'?' C-061 responded, ''Flour' was called 'flour'.' He pointed out that 'batteries' was used to mean 'weapons.'
Whether or not Milosevic was successful in challenging C-061 on these points, the line of cross examination was appropriate. It shows he knows what is proper and what is not. When court is closed to the public, however, it reduces his time to address his public – and he is left to challenge the witness (and the prosecution's case) only before the judges. While they will decide his fate under the law, to Milosevic his public remains the final arbiter of his historical destiny. For them, he appears to consider name calling and derogatory comments persuasive. It remains to be seen whether they are as ignorant as he thinks they are.
