are confirmed by Captain Martrni n de l a Hoz: “Several timesrnour Colonel protested to NATOrnchiefs that they selected targetsrnwhich are NOT m i l i t a r yrnt a r g e t s . They threw him out,rnwith curses, threatening thatrnthe North Americans wouldrnlodge a complaint with thernSpanish Army, once throughrnBrussels and then to the DefencernMinister. I want to t e l lrni t to the whole world: oncernthere was a coded order fromrnthe Americans that we shouldrndrop anti-personnel bombs overrnthe l o c a l i t i e s of Prishtinarnand Nish. The colonel refusedrni t altogether and, a couple ofrndays l a t e r , the transfer orderrncame, removing him from ourrnu n i t . “rnCapt. Martin de la Hoz believes thatrnthere was no excuse for the wrong selectionrnof targets:rn”There i s no j o u r n a l i s t who hasrnany s l i g h t e s t idea what i s happeningrnin Yugoslavia. They arerndestroying the country, bombingrni t with novel weapons, toxicrnnervous gases, surfacernmines dropped with parachute,rnbombs containing uranium,rnblack napalm, s t e r i l i z a t i onrnchemicals, sprayings to poisonrnthe crops and weapons of whichrneven we s t i l l do not know anything.rnThe North Americans arerncommitting there one of thernbiggest b a r b a r i t i e s that canrnbe committed against humanity.rn. . . [J]udging by what werntalked about with the B r i t i s hrnand German officers, i t was designedrnin order to divide thernEuropeans and keep us subjectedrnfor many decades.”rnCapt. Martin de la Hoz concludes:rn”Be sure that what I say i s notrnto exculpate myself and to intonern”mea culpa’ for havingrnp a r t i c i p a t e d in i t , because Irnwill never be able to forgetrnthat what was being committedrnthere was one the biggest savageriesrnof history.”rnDon’t hold your breath waiting for thernperpetrators of those savageries to be prosecuted.rnWhile the mainstream media inrnAmerica take both the authority and thernsupposed impartiality of the war crimesrntribunal for the former Yugoslavia forrngranted, healthy skepticism is occasionallyrnallowed into the establishment press inrnEurope. Writing in the Times of Londonrn(June 18), John Laughland rightly predictedrnthat the allegations of war crimes—rn”eagerly funnelled out of Kosovo byrnthe thousands of journalists in thernprovince”—would provoke a demand forrnretribution, but he also warned that thernHague is “a rogue court with rigged rules,”rnestabhshed to override the key principle ofrnthe international order—the sovereigntyrnof states within their borders—in thernname of protecting people from despots.rnLaughland calls this a “seductive argument”rnthat may allow the “internationalrncommunity” to wield unfettered power instead:rnThe International CriminalrnTribunal shows l i t t l e sign ofrncaring that Nato has i t s e l frnbroken nearly every rule ofrnwar, or that the peace dealrnconcluded with Belgrade isrnnull and void in internationalrnlaw, since Yugoslavia’s signaturernwas obtained by force.rnInstead, i t displays considerablerncontempt for the veryrnthing which distinguishes thernrule of law from r e t r i b u t i vernj u s t i c e , namely due process.rnLaughland points out that the old principlernthat a defendant may not be triedrntwice for the same crime “is calmlyrnbrushed aside by Article 25 of the tribunal’srnstatute, which gives the Prosecutorrnthe right to appeal against an acquittal andrnobtain a conviction instead.” Three suchrnappeals have already been launched. Anotherrndeeply rooted principle, that no partyrnmay be the judge in its own cause, doesrnnot apply to the tribunal:rnAlthough i t i s a key requirementrnfor due process that a defendantrnbe t r i e d by a body “establishedrnby law”, thernSecurity Council i s not a lawmakingrnbody. Faced with thernallegation that i t had no l e ­gitimacy,rnthe tribunal did notrnrefer the matter to anotherrnbody, such as the InternationalrnCourt of J u s t i c e , but insteadrndecided to deal with therncharge i t s e l f . Not surprisingly,rni t found in i t s ownrnfavour.rnOther anomalies are legion: The tribunalrndoes not accord the right to bail or torna speedy trial; it does not have a definitionrnof the burden of proof required for a conviction;rnit does not have juries; there is nornindependent appeals body; rules againstrnhearsay, enshrined in common law, are notrnobserved; and the prosecutor’s officernprefers the tribunal’s own “war crimes investigators”rnto witnesses, flouting the lulernthat a defendant must be able to confrontrnhis accusers and to prepare a cross-examinationrnof them.rnThe tribunal gives i t s e l f powersrnas i t goes along. LouisernArbour, the recently departedrnChief Prosecutor, has said:rn”The law, to me, should be creativernand used to make thingsrnr i g h t , ” and the tribunal dipsrninto a potpourri of differentrnlegal systems from around thernworld. . . . As if this werernnot enough, the tribunal is notrnfunded by d i s i n t e r e s t e d partrni e s , but by those who waged orrnsupported the attacks on Yugoslavia.rnThese include thernleading Nato governments (especiallyrnthe United States)rnand various non-governmentalrnorganisations like GeorgernSoros’s Open Society I n s t i ­trnu t e , whose head of office inrnKosovo i s a militant supporterrnof the Kosovo Liberation Army.rnMight, it seems, is always right, andrnLaughland reminds us that, on May 17,rnthe NATO spokesman, the inimitablern”Jamie” Shea, explicitly rejected any possibilityrnthat NATO leaders could ever bernindicted by the tribunal. As Laughlandrnconcludes: “This is not victors’justice—itrnis no justice at all.”rnWh en in Rockford,rnEat atrnLee’s ChinesernRestaurantrn3443 N. Main StreetrnSEPTEMBER 1999/25rnrnrn