OSLOBODITE GENERALA PRALJKA I NJEGOVE SUBORCE


To the Security Council of The United Nations :
regardING the Croatians of Bosnia-Herzegovina

In our letter, following The Hague’s racist judgement brought down on 15 April 2011, we stated that “we know that for you defending of our Homeland, our People and our Nation is just a PLANNED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY!”. This also applies to the Croatians from Bosnia-Herzegovina, who have been, and are being, judged in your Hague in the same, shameful manner.
Recently we have seen the Vatican express its concerns about the Catholic population of Bosnia-Herzegovina which may disappear in the upcoming decades. Of the 800,000 Catholics in 1991, today only 440,000 remain in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The elimination of Croatians from Bosnia-Herzegovina, through military and non-military means, is for all intents and purposes a blatant example of genocide.
For whose benefit do you intend to cleanse Bosnia-Herzegovina of its Croatian people? What do you intend to convert this State into?
The Croatian people are proud, and will always be proud, of those to whom your “Court” has handed down draconian sentences, even those responsible for the saviour of one hundred thousand or so civilians in Bihać – only because they were Muslims. One of those accused, awaiting sentencing in The Hague, who will forever remain one of the finest sons of the Croatian people, thus describes the war between the victims of Greater Serbian aggression, the Muslims and Croatians of Bosnia-Herzegovina:

Closing address of General Slobodan Praljak
(The Hague, 21 February 2011)
I
The training of police officers Bosnia-Herzegovina in Croatia, who were sent by the Party of Democratic Action (SDA) as early as 1991.
The training of pilots of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Army (BH Army) in the Republic of Croatia.
The training and equipping of entire BH Army units in Croatia.
The taking up of hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees in Croatia
The organisation of ex-territorial education and schooling for Muslim refugees in the Republic of Croatia, in the Bosnian language, which didn't even exist at the time.
The uninterrupted supply of weapons to the BH Army.
Ammunition, oil, medication, food, and other necessary logistics for the BH Army in order to wage a war
The medical treatment of more than 10.000 wounded BH Army combatants in Croatian hospitals.
Enabling thousands of Mujahedin to come and join the BH Army.
Logistic bases for the BH Army located in the Croatian towns Zagreb, Rijeka, Split, and Samobor throughout the war. And so on and so forth.
And all of this for free!
Never in the history of war have one people, the Croats, provided so much help to another people, the Bosnian Muslims, even when the latter turned their army, the BH Army, against the Croats, the Croatian Defence Council (HVO), in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Never in the history of war has the commander of one army, the HVO, let convoys with armaments and other equipment pass through to another army, the BH Army, even when that army, the BH Army, used those armaments and all the rest to attack those who let them receive it.
a)     And what about the referendum of Croats for Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was a precondition for the existence of that state;
b)    the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Republic of Croatia;
c)     the appointment of the Ambassador of the Republic Croatia to Bosnia-Herzegovina;
d)     the signing of all propositions made by the international community on the internal structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the first ones to sign were the representatives of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna (HZ-HB) and the Republic of Croatia.
That was the policy of Dr. Franjo Tudjman, president of the Republic of Croatia. It was the policy of the Government of the Republic of Croatia, the Parliament of the Republic of Croatia and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia. It was the policy of the HVO.
To the Prosecution of this Tribunal, all these are elements of a joint criminal enterprise.
Such an indictment uses logic that is offensive even to the cognitive system of a pathogenic virus.
I - 1
What kind of opinion and which positions precede such an indictment?
1 - Simon Leach, a former police constable in Great Britain, a member of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) who investigated crimes committed by Croats in the Lasva Valley, at a meeting of the Prosecution in 1996, produced a piece of paper with names of Franjo Tudjman, Gojko Susak and Vice Vukojevic.
He interpreted and explained that these were the goals that his investigation was leading to.
2 - I quote from William Montgomery's book, “Struggling with democratic transition; After the cheering stops”, page 114:
"The US special ambassador for war crimes, Pierre Prosper, invited three American ambassadors from the region; from Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to come to The Hague in order to meet with the representatives of the ICTY. Two particularly distinct observations remain. The first one refers to the fact that we heard directly from Carla Del Ponte that the official approach of her office is based on the premise that the war leaders of each of the parties are guilty of war crimes, and, thereafter she considers which specific crimes can be used to prove their guilt. At that moment, it seemed, and it still seems to me, that such a viewpoint is false for several reasons."
Is Mr. Montgomery a credible witness?
What was the reaction of the other three?
The viewpoints of Carla Del Ponte are not “false for several reasons”. Her position is that of imperial arrogance and a degradation of law and its reduction to Communist purges and Nazi pogroms.
3 - In her book "La Caccia: Io e Il Criminali Di Guerra," Carla Del Ponte says, on page 254:
One of the Prosecutors of the Tribunal, a Canadian, well known in his circle for his wit and anecdotes, had an aphorism that did a good job capturing the difference between the Serbs and the Croats who attempted to obstruct the work of the Tribunal. “The Serbs are bastards, he used to say.  In contrast, the Croats are perfidious bastards."
1       This Prosecutor of the Tribunal, the Canadian, is using the language of hate.
1.1  Carla Del Ponte uses the phrase "he used to say", which means that it was not a one-off witty remark, but a habitual, chauvinistic and racist characterisation of the Croats as “perfidious bastards”.
1.2  Carla Del Ponte relays the words of one of the Prosecutors of the Tribunal without any restrictions, which means that she completely agrees with that opinion; on an ongoing basis, too, which we can infer from the language and the phrase “he used to say”.
2       The lack of any reaction to such a pro-fascist manner of speech about one nation is something I cannot comprehend. I'm interested in knowing whether the indictment against me may have been drafted under the impression of such an opinion.
If, by any chance, I, Slobodan Praljak, had written or said anything like that, anywhere, at any time, about any people or nation or group during the war in the territories of the former Yugoslavia, for that alone I would have been sentenced to five years of imprisonment.
I really would like to know whether the saying "quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" is something that is a valid rule here in this Tribunal. I really would like to know whether the international organisations, which established the Tribunal and which ensure that it is fair, support the viewpoint mentioned in the said book.
II
The Prosecution has compared me to the Nazis and my activity to the Holocaust.
Well, let me then describe the role of Goering, the character which, according to the Prosecution, I am the equivalent.
-         This Goering placed his Jews (in this case Muslims) in his country cottage and took care of them.
-         He put his Jews in his apartment in Zagreb. He fed them and gave them medical treatment.
-         He exposed himself to sniper fire in front of the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) barracks at Grabovina in order to save the wives of his enemies.
-         He protected the captured JNA soldiers with his own body and saw to it that they made it to their homes safe and sound.
-         He pulled out captured Serb civilians from the Dretelj Camp, although he was being threatened with weapons; not alone, though. The camp was held by Croatian Defence Forces (HOS) members, who were mostly Muslims.
-         He evacuated wounded Jews (in this case Muslims) from the hospital in East Mostar; not alone, of course.
-         He organised the evacuation and accommodation of 15,000 Jews (in this case Muslims) from Stolac and the Dubrava Plateau, across the Neretva, and 3,000 of their cars. He didn't do that alone, either.
-         He transported a wounded Jewish women (in this case a Muslim woman) by helicopter from East Mostar to Split; not alone.
-         He received a Jewish (in this case Muslim) family with a child suffering from leukaemia near Uskoplje and transported them to Split to be treated. He helped them get citizenship for the Republic of Croatia in order to travel to Switzerland and get medical treatment at the expense of the Republic of; not alone, though.
-         He organised that the Salvation Road for Jews (in this case Muslims) be built in order to be able to leave to another country, Goering's country, the Republic of Croatia. He didn't do it alone, though.
-         He guided them and fought with the Jews (in this case Muslims) defending and liberating Mostar, Capljina, Travnik, Konjic and other places. He didn't do that alone either.
-         He, of his own accord, let go the captured Jews (in this case Muslims) who were captured after the conflict in Rama or Prozor, and he prevented retaliation after the Jews (in this case Muslims) committed crimes in Uzdol.
-         He didn't do that alone, and the same applies to Doljani and Grabovica. When necessary, he personally let through convoys transporting food for the Jews (in this case Muslims) as well as convoys with armaments, even when the 3rd Corps of the BH Army, the 4th Corps of the BH Army, the 6th Corps of the BH Army and parts of the 1st Corps of the BH Army launched an attack against Goering, against the western borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina, at the port of Ploce, after they had signed a truce with the Serbs. He didn't do that alone either, and so on and so forth.
-         I'll skip Goering's - that is Praljak's - behaviour in the courtroom’
-         But, all of this behaviour makes one a war criminal, according to the logic applied by the OTP.
The Prosecutor quoted Goethe's Faust, about the mirror that we should use to look at ourselves. My actus reus is my mirror, my reason for being and my very essence, because they follow from the mens rea of the one that we call Slobodan Praljak.
Unfortunately, Judges Prandler and Trechsel refused to accept my 150 witnesses who were supposed to testify about the acts and deeds of the accused Praljak, and about the general situation in which such deeds were necessary, but, unfortunately, not always sufficient.
But what I really fail to comprehend is the legal procedure that forbids me to testify about Mladic's diaries.
III
DO I REGRET THE VICTIMS?
 Yes, I regret all innocent victims of all wars.
I especially regret the victims of those 500 wars or so after 1945 that have taken place and still go on, despite all moralists' speeches that we hear daily.
I especially regret every child that, in reality, dies of hunger every four seconds.
Peace in dictatorship is a preparation for war.  The longer and the worst the dictatorship, the more negative energy builds up and the more blood and evil will follow later.
It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Tito or Saddam.
And those who bring down a dictator and who later try to diminish the evil that occurs according to the force of the laws of physics, but those who made possible the dictatorship and by their silence made it last longer.
The same applies to Yugoslavia after Tito as well as to Iraq after Saddam.
What the Prosecutor calls nationalism is something the Croats felt a necessity for freedom, both the freedom of the people and citizens' freedom.
In this sense, I am a Croatian nationalist.
I do not renounce the policy of Dr. Franjo Tudjman because that policy created the Republic of Croatia and made possible the survival of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a state.
I do not renounce the inherent sense and point in the legal establishment of the HZ-HB, the expression of the will of the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina to become and remain a sovereign and constitutive people in that state.
The HZ-HB, by its frail organisational structure, made possible the creation of the HVO, which in 1992 was able to defend Bosnia-Herzegovina and the south of the Republic of Croatia in 1993, prevented the implementation of the aggressive plans of the BH Army.
Bosnian Muslim politics and the BH Army, unable to regain the territories that were occupied by the JNA and the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) – largely due to the weapons embargo implemented by the United Nations, which is incomprehensible to an ethical human mind – moved to launch a counter-offensive against the HVO. By liberating areas from Croats, they committed crimes at Konjic, Capljina, Doljani, Bugojno, Grabovica, Uzdol, and elsewhere.
The facts are plain to see for the killed, expelled and detained Croats.
Social relations are an area where the laws of cause and consequence apply, whereas the spiral of evil, once initiated, does not justify crime, but it does significantly reduce the possibility to implement the law.
No matter whose task, on paper, it may be.
It is like that, everywhere and always.
The HVO defended itself from an aggression in 1992, in 1993, and 1994, and a commander's duty is not to lose the war.
My conscience is clear.
IV
Legal proceedings are the interpretation of laws and facts.
Trial proceedings are rhetorical, and, as such, do not seek to find the absolute truth. It seeks to find a probable truth (beyond all reasonable doubt) which can be hardly contradicted or not at all.
In an attempt to discover such truth, knowledge is not enough. One needs to ponder, one needs to apply logic, one needs to apply rational and logical argumentation.
Data, facts, statements, and statistics do not mean a thing if they are not in a logical relationship with assertions.
Through connecting various types of knowledge, we can get closer to the truth.
In these proceedings, one requires knowledge from the field of sociology, sociology of war, knowledge about societies in which state and social structures are completely destroyed, in which individuals return to their natural state. One needs to apply knowledge from the field of war psychology as well as the knowledge of war skills, armament, and the understanding of the real purpose of the military, and so on and so forth.
Potential mistakes in the interpretation of facts are probable and disastrous:
a)     exaggerated and false summation of concepts and logical connections;
b)    conclusions made on the basis of false presumptions;
c)     the avoidance of comparing similar regimes and phenomena;
d)    arbitrary (so dear to intellectuals) equalisation of the concept of ‘able to’ and the concepts of ‘want to’ and ‘desire to’;
e)     arbitrarily identifying culprits because the world is not how one wishes or conceives it to be.
These are all fields of possible logical errors in the final assessment of facts.
I sincerely hope that the honourable Trial Chamber will strictly adhere to scientific methods and knowledge.

IV - 1
In the last century, never mind history prior to that, tens of millions of people have been convicted in trial proceedings.
Pursuant to racial laws (USA and RSA), dictatorial, religious and Nazi laws (Germany, Serbia, Slovakia, the Independent State of Croatia), fascist laws (Italy), communist laws (USSR, Yugoslavia, Hungary, China) and so on and so forth.
Court rhetoric has been under the influence of unreasonable social and political powers for too long, which is why it has been criticised.
Unfortunately, not enough.
So that it does not end up in moral despair, it is high time for court rhetoric to become what it has to be – a reasonable and rational process.
Do I have the right to hope?
IV - 2
Laws of this Tribunal may be what they are; however, they do not apply to the Americans.
For other peoples, laws of the Permanent Court apply, and those laws again differ from the laws applied here at the ICTY, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, laws which are applied to me.
This abolishes a significant condition of the court rhetoric, which is the “principle of the equality of arms among the participants in the trial proceedings”.
And now I paraphrase Perelman:
“In a relationship where inequality significantly characterises the relationship between humans, there is no foundation for a reasonable and judicious process.”
V
I am not guilty!
And I'm not referring here to the feeling of guilt.
Coldly, rationally, with a logical analysis that has been critically examined dozens of times.
I know I am not guilty!
Your Honour, Judge Antonetti, if your judgement is the opposite of my conclusion, I will respect the general principle of challenging every opinion, conclusion, or attitude. I shall reconsider my position on my own responsibility openly and courageously.
If I recognise a mistake after that, I shall serve my time because you are righteous.
I will know what I could have done better, how I could have done it better, where I could have done it better, and when I could have done things better, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I did and in what I failed to do.
If, however, you do not convince me and if your interpretation of facts is not a good-enough, or a false, application of the social sciences:
What is not possible, thus becomes possible,
What is not simple, thus becomes simple,
The ability to do something becomes a crude substitute for a desire or a wish,
Then I will only be in jail because the Tribunal is almighty.
And, in all truth, this wouldn't be anything new.
My half hour is up.
***

So, once again, we ask of you:
Return us our soldiers and our fellow Croatians from Bosnia-Herzegovina, who you are holding captive and have sentenced without proving their guilt! Also, absolve General Praljak and his fellow soldiers, because through their sentencing you are simply expressing your desire to eliminate the Croatian people from Bosnia-Herzegovina. By doing what we ask, you will restore your collective honour, as history will judge you based on how just and honourable your actions have been.
That is all that we, Croatians, ask of you . . .


VIJEĆU SIGURNOSTI UJEDINJENIH NARODA O HRVATIMA BIH

U našem pismu povodom rasističkih Haaških presuda od 15. travnja 2011. napisali smo vam kako “znamo da je za vas braniti svoj Dom, svoj Narod i svoju Državu samo PLANIRANI UROTNIČKI ZLOČIN!“ To se odnosi i na Hrvate u BiH, a i njima se sudi i sudilo se u vašemu Den Haagu  na isti sramotni način.
Ovih dana smo svjedoci kako se i Vatikan pribojava da bi katolici u Bosni i Hercegovini za koje desetljeće mogli posve nestati. Od oko 800.000 katolika u 1991. godini danas ih je ostalo 440.000. Eliminiranje Hrvata iz BiH, što vojnim što nevojnim sredstvima, zapravo je eklatantan primjer genocida.
Za čiji račun želite očistiti BiH od Hrvata? U što namjeravate pretvoriti tu državu?
Hrvatski narod se ponosi i uvijek će se ponositi onima kojima vaš „Sud“ određuje drakonske kazne pa čak i zbog spašavanja stotinjak tisuća ljudi – samo zato što su muslimani. Jedan od onih koji ce zauvijek biti među ponajboljim  sinovima hrvatskog naroda, haaški optuženik, ovako govori o ratu između žrtava velikosrpske agresije, muslimana i Hrvata BiH:


Završni govor generala Praljka

I.

Obuka policajaca iz BIH u Hrvatskoj, a koje šalje SDA još 1991. god.
Obuka pilota A BIH u Republici Hrvatskoj.
Obuka i opremanje čitavih postrojba A BIH u Hrvatskoj.
Zbrinjavanje stotina tisuća muslimanskih izbjeglica u RH.
Organiziranje eksteritorijalnog školstva za muslimane izbjeglice u RH i to na, tada još nepostojećem, bosanskom jeziku.
Vremenski neprekinuto naoružavanje A BIH.
Municija, nafta, lijekovi, hrana i ostala potrebna logistika A BIH za vođenje rata.
Liječenje više od 10 000 ranjenih boraca A BIH u hrvatskim bolnicama.
Omogućavanje dolaska više tisuća mudžahedina u A BIH.
Regularni logistički centri A BIH u Zagrebu, Rijeci, Splitu, Samoboru, tijekom cijelog rata.
Itd., itd.
I sve to besplatno.
Nikada u povijesti ratovanja jedan narod – (Hrvati) – nije tako i toliko pomogao drugi narod – (Bošnjaci-Muslimani) – i onda kada su potonji okrenuli svoju vojsku – (A BIH) – protiv Hrvata – (HVO) – u BIH.
Nikada u povijesti ratovanja zapovjednik jedne vojske (HVO-a) nije propuštao konvoje oružja (i ostalog) drugoj vojsci (A BIH) i onda kada je ta vojska ( A BIH) to oružje (i ostalo) koristila za napade na one koji su joj to propustili.


a)            A što je s referendumom Hrvata za BIH, koji je preduvjet za postojanje te države.
b)           Priznanje BIH od RH.
c)            Imenovanje veleposlanika RH u BIH.
d)           Potpisivanje svih prijedloga međunarodne zajednice o unutarnjem uređenju BIH a prvi koji su potpisivali bili su predstavnici HZ HB i RH.

To je bila politika dr. Franje Tuđmana, predsjednika RH, to je bila politika Vlade RH i Sabora RH i MORH-a, to je bila politika HVO-a.
To su za tužiteljstvo ovog suda elementi UZP-a.
Takva optužnica služi se logikom koja je uvredljiva i za kognitivni sustav patogenog virusa.


I-1.

Kakvo mišljenje i koji stavovi prethode ovakvoj optužnici?
1.            Simon Leach, bivsi kvartovski policajac u Velikoj Britaniji, član tužiteljskog tima koji je istraživao zločine Hrvata u Lašvanskoj dolini, na jednom sastanku u tužiteljstvu 1996. godine izvadio je papir na kojem su pisala imena: Franjo Tuđman, Gojko Šušak, Vice Vukojević.Tumačio je i objašnjavao da su to ciljevi do kojih će dovesti njegova istraga.
2.            Citiram iz knjige Williama Montgomeryja „Kad ovacije utihnu“. (Struggling with democratic transition; After the cheering stops, 2010), stranica 114.
A.„Specijalni ambasador SAD-a za ratne zločine Pierre Prosper pozvao je trojicu američkih ambasadora iz regiona (iz Srbije, Hrvatske i Bosne) da dođu u Haag kako bi se sastali s predstavnicima MKSJ. Dve uspomene naročito su upečatljive. Prva se odnosi na to da smo direktno od Carle del Ponte čuli da se zvaničan pristup njene kancelarije temelji na stavu da su svi ratni lideri svih strana krivi za ratne zločine, a da zatim razmatra koji su to određeni zločini i kako da dokaže njihovu krivicu. Takvo gledište tada mi se učinilo – i još mi se čini – pogrešnim po mnogim osnovama.“
Je li gospodin Montgomery vjerodostojan svjedok?
Kakva je reakcija ostale trojice?
Stavovi Carle del Ponte nisu „pogrešni po mnogim osnovama“, to je imperijalna bahatost, degradacija prava na komunističke čistke i nacističke pogrome.
3.     U svojoj knjizi La Caccia – Io E I Criminali di Guerra, u 10. poglavlju “Zagabria, dal 1999 al 2001“, na stranici 254. piše:
Jedan od tužitelja Suda, Kanađanin dobro poznat u krugu po svojoj duhovitosti i dosjetkama, služio se aforizmom kojim je dobro isticao razliku između Srba i Hrvata koji su pokušavali ometati rad Suda: “ Srbi su kopilad,” govorio je, “dok su Hrvati podmukla kopilad.”
1.         Taj tužitelj suda, Kanađanin, služi se govorom mržnje.
1.1. Del Ponte upotrebljava trajni glagol „služiti“ (upotrebljavati). To znači da to nije bila „dosjetka“ jednom upotrjebljena, već uobičajeni način šovinističkog i rasističkog karakteriziranja HRVATA – „podmukla kopilad“.
1.2.  Carla del Ponte prenosi riječi jednog od tužitelja suda bez ikakvih ograda, a to znači da se ona s takvim mišljenjem u cijelosti slaže. I to trajno u skladu sa značenjem glagola „služiti“ (upotrebljavati).
2.                  Potpuno mi je nejasan izostanak bilo kakve reakcije na takav profašistički način govora o jednom narodu. Mene interesira da li je u ozračju takvog mišljenja napisana optužnica protiv mene.
Da sam, kojim slučajem, ja, Slobodan Praljak, napisao ili izrekao takvu kvalifikaciju bilo kada, u bilo kojoj formi prema bilo kom narodu ili skupini u vrijeme rata na prostorima bivše Jugoslavije, dobio bih samo zbog toga 5 godina zatvora. Želim saznati da li na sudu u Haagu vrijedi: „Quid licet Iovi, non licet bovi.“ Želim saznati da li međunarodne organizacije koje su osnovale sud i koje se brinu o njegovoj pravičnosti, podržavaju taj stav, izrečen u spomenutoj knjizi.

II.

Tužiteljstvo me uspoređuje s nacistima a moje djelovanje s holokaustom.

Pa da opišem ulogu Goeringa s kojim likom bi, po tužiteljstvu, ja trebao biti sukladan.

-         Taj je Goering smjestio svoje Židove (Muslimane) u svoju vikendicu i brinuo se o njima.
-         Smjestio je svoje Židove u stan u Zagrebu, hranio ih i liječio.
-         Išao je na snajpersku vatru kod vojarne JNA u Grabovini kako bi spasio žene svojih neprijatelja.
-         Tijelom zaštitio zarobljene vojnike JNA i brinuo se da sretno stignu svojim kućama.
-    Izvukao zarobljene civile Srbe iz logora u Dretelju prijetnjom oružja. Ne sam.Logor su držali pripadnici HOS-a – pretežito Muslimani.
-         Izvlačio ranjene Židove – Muslimane iz bolnice u istočnom Mostaru. Ne sam.
-         Organizirao izvlačenje, prebacivanje i smještaj 15 000 Židova – Muslimana iz Stoca i Dubravske Visoravni splavom preko Neretve + 3 000 automobila. Ne sam.
-  Prevezao ranjenu Muslimanku – Židovku helikopterom iz istočnog Mostara u Split. Ne sam.
-         Židovsku (muslimansku) obitelj s djetetom oboljelim od leukemije preuzeo kod Uskoplja i prebacio u Split na liječenje. Omogućio im stjecanje hrvatskog državljanstva kako bi na teret hrvatskog proračuna mogli otputovati u Švicarsku na liječenje. Ne sam.
-         Organizira gradnju ceste spasa za Židove – Muslimane kako bi mogli otići u drugu domovinu. Goeringovu, u Hrvatsku. Ne sam.
-         Vodio ih i borio se sa Židovima – Muslimanima braneći i oslobađajući Mostar, Čapljinu, Travnik i Konjic, itd. Ne sam.
-  Pustio na svoju ruku zarobljene Židove – Muslimane, zarobljene poslije sukoba u Rami – Prozoru.
-         Spriječio osvetu nakon sto su Židovi – Muslimani počinili zločin u Uzdolu. Ne sam.
-         Isto to vrijedi i za Doljane i Grabovicu. Ne sam.
-         Kad je trebalo i osobno provodio konvoje s hranom za Muslimane – Židove i konvoje s oružjem i onda kada su 3. K A BIH i 4. K A BIH i 6. K A BIH i dijelovi K A BIH krenuli protiv Goeringa na zapadne granice BIH i u luku Ploče. Nakon sto su potpisali primirje sa Srbima. Ne sam.
-         Itd. Itd.
-         Goering – Praljkovo ponašanje u Sunji ću preskočiti.
-         Takvim se ponašanjem postaje ratni zločinac sukladno logici tužiteljstva.
Tužitelj citira Goetheova „Fausta“ – o zrcalu u koje se moramo pogledati. Moji su actus reus moje ogledalo, moj smisao i moja bit, jer proizlaze iz mens rea onoga što nazivamo Slobodan Praljak.
Nažalost, suci Prandler i Trechsel odbili su prihvatiti mojih 150 svjedoka, koji svjedoče o činu i aktu i djelu optuženog Praljka, svjedoče istodobno i o općoj situaciji u kojoj su takva djela nužna, nažalost ne uvijek i dovoljna.
A nikako ne razumijem pravnu proceduru koja mi zabranjuje svjedočiti o Mladićevim dnevnicima.


III.

ŽALIM LI ŽRTVE?

Da, žalim sve nevine žrtve svih ratova.
Posebno žalim žrtve onih petstotinjak ratova poslije 1945. a dogodili su se i događaju se usprkos svim moralističkim filipikama koje svakodnevno slušamo.
Posebno žalim za svakim onim djetetom koje umre od gladi svake 4 sekunde ovoga našeg realnog vremena.
Mir u diktaturi je priprema za rat. Što duža i gora diktatura, to je vise akumulirane negativne energije, to je više krvi i zla poslije.
Radilo se o Titu ili Sadamu, isto je.
I nisu krivi oni koji sruše diktatora i poslije se trude umanjiti zlo koje se javlja snagom fizičkih zakona, nego oni koji su omogućili i šutnjom produžili trajnost diktatoru.
Isto vrijedi i za Jugoslaviju poslije Tita i za Irak poslije Sadama.
Ono sto tužitelj naziva nacionalizmom, kod Hrvata je bila potreba za slobodom, i nacionalnom i građanskom.
U tom smislu ja sam hrvatski nacionalist.
Ne odričem se nacionalne politike dr. Franje Tuđmana jer je ta politika stvorila RH I omogućila opstanak BIH kao države.
Ne odričem se smisla i pravnog utemeljenja HZ-HB, izraza volje Hrvata u BIH, suverenog i konstitutivnog naroda u toj državi.
HZ HB, krhkom organiziranošću, omogućila je stvaranje HVO-a koji je 1992. obranio BIH i jug Hrvatske, a 1993. spriječio ostvarenje agresivnih planova A BIH.

A)           Muslimanska politika i A BIH, nemoćni da vrate od JNA i VRS-a zauzete teritorije (dobrim dijelom i zbog moralnom ljudskom umu neshvatljivog embarga na oružje) krenula je u ofenzivu prema HVO-u. Oslobađajući BIH od Hrvata počinili su zločine – Konjic, Čapljina, Doljani, Bugojno, Grabovica, Uzdol, itd., itd.
Činjenice su na raspolaganju i za ubijene i za protjerane i za zatvorene Hrvate.
Društveni su odnosi uzročno-posljedični a pokrenuta spirala zla ne opravdava zločin, ali bitno smanjuje mogućnost provedbe prava. Ma tko god, na papiru, bio zadužen to raditi.
Svugdje i uvijek je tako.
HVO se branio od agresije i 1992. i 1993. i 1994. a dužnost zapovjednika je ne izgubiti rat.
Moja savjest je čista.

IV.

Sudski je proces tumačenje zakona i interpretacija činjenica.
Sudski proces je retorički i kao takav ne traži apsolutnu istinu, već istinu koja je vrlo vjerojatna (van svake razumne sumnje), kojoj se teško ili nikako ne može proturječiti.
U iznalaženju takve istine nije dovoljno znanje, već je potrebno umovanje, potreban je logos – racionalno i logično argumentiranje.
Podatci i činjenice, izjave, statistike…u argumentaciji ne znače ništa ako nisu logičnim zaključivanjem dovedeni u vezu s tvrdnjama.
Tek povezivanjem različitih znanja možemo se približiti istini.
U ovom procesu potrebna su znanja iz sociologije, sociologije rata, znanja o društvima u kojima je potpuno razorena i državna i društvena struktura, u kojima se pojedinci vraćaju u prirodno stanje, potrebna su znanja iz ratne psihologije, znanja ratnih vještina, oruđa, stvarnog sadržaja pojma vojske, itd., itd.
Moguće pogreške u interpretaciji činjenica su i vjerojatne i kobne.

a.                      Pretjerana i kriva redukcija pojmovnog aparata i logične povezanosti.
b.                     Zaključivanje na osnovu krivih pretpostavki.
c.                      Izbjegavanje usporedbe sličnih sustava i fenomena.
d.  Lagodno (intelektualcima tako drago) izjednačavanje pojma „moći“ i pojma „htjeti“ „željeti“, i
e.                      Lagodno upiranje prstom u krivce što svijet nije skladan njihovoj volji i predodžbi.

Sve su to polja logičkih mogućih grešaka u konačnoj prosudbi.
Nadati je se da će se časni suci pridržavati strogih znanstvenih metoda i spoznaja.

IV. -1

U prošlom stoljeću, da ne spominjem daleku prošlost, u sudskim je procesima osuđeno više desetina milijuna ljudi.
Po zakonima rasnim (SAD, Pretorija), diktatorskim, vjerskim, nacističkim (Njemačka, Srbija, Slovačka, NDH), fašističkim (Italija), komunističkim (SSSR, Jugoslavija, Mađarska, Kina) itd i tome slično.
Sudska retorika predugo je bila pod utjecajem nerazumnih društvenih i političkih sila i zbog toga je i sama osuđivana.
Nažalost, nedovoljno.
Kako ne bi završila u moralnom beznađu, krajnje je vrijeme da postane ono što mora biti – razuman i uman proces.
Imam li se prava nadati?

IV-2

Kakvi god da jesu zakoni ovog suda, oni ne vrijede za Amerikance.
Za ostale narode vrijede zakoni stalnog suda (ICC – Međunarodni krivični sud) a ti se opet zakoni razlikuju od ovih ovdje (ICTY – Međunarodni krivični sud za bivšu Jugoslaviju), po kojima se meni sudi.
Time je ukinut važan uvjet sudske retorike a taj jest „Princip ravnopravnosti sudionika u sudskom procesu“.

Citiram PERELMANA:

„U odnosu u kojem je nejednakost bitno obilježje odnosa među ljudima, nema osnove za razuman i uman proces“.

V.

Nisam kriv!
I ne mislim pritom na osjećaj krivnje.
Hladno, racionalno, logikom koja je kritički provjeravana desetine puta –  znam da nisam kriv.
Časni suče Antonetti; ako vaša presuda bude suprotna mom zaključku, ja ću, poštujući opće načelo opovrgljivosti svakog mišljenja, zaključka ili stava, otvoreno i hrabro preispitati svoj stav o vlastitoj odgovornosti.
Ako spoznam pogrešku, izdržavat ću kaznu jer ste vi pravični.
Znat ću što sam mogao bolje, kako sam mogao bolje, gdje sam mogao bolje i kada sam mogao bolje; i to mišlju, riječju, djelom i propustom.
Ako me ne uvjerite, ako vaše tumačenje činjenica bude nedovoljno dobra ili pogrešno primijenjena spoznaja neke od društvenih znanosti:
Pa postane moguće ono što nije bilo moguće,
Pa postane jednostavno ono što nije jednostavno,
Pa moć da se nešto učini postane prosta zamjena za želju ili htijenje,
Onda ću ja biti u zatvoru samo zato jer je sud sila.
A to zbilja ne bi bilo ništa novo.
Mojih pola sata je isteklo.

***

Zato mi ponovno tražimo od vas:
Vratite nam naše branitelje i iz Bosne i Hercegovine, koje ste vi zatočili ili već i osudili bez dokazane krivnje! Oslobodite i generala Praljka i njegove suborce Jadranka Prljića, Bruna Stojića, Milivoja Petkovića, Valentina Ćorića i Berislava Pušića, jer njihovom presudom samo pokazujete želju za definitivnim eleminiranjem Hrvata iz BiH. Tako ćete spasiti svoju čast čast svih vas, jer po tome koliko ste bili pravedni i časni sudit će vam povijest.  

Mi, Hrvati, samo to od vas tražimo …
1 komentar

Popularni postovi s ovog bloga

Večernja molitva vlč. Zlatka Suca

Karamarko usporedio Vladu sa zrakoplovom punim putnika, ali bez pilota i posade

ZNANJEM ĆEMO, A NE ORUŽJEM, STVARI PROMIJENITI NABOLJE