Jump to content

Talk:Agim Çeku

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On war crimes

[edit]

Hmm. There is no mention of the war crimes that he conducted. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that he was indicted, but unfortunately don't have much information about the specific crimes he comitted. --Serbiana ₪ 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ilir keeps reverting, and claims that it's irrelevant that he was INDICTED FOR WAR CRIMES. Ilir, when you are talking about a leader of a province, do you think it's not important to mention that he is INDICTED FOR WAR CRIMES??? That sounds pretty important to me. And you can't say its vandalism or nationalism, because it is the truth, he really is indicted. The fact that you want to hide that IS VANDALISM!! --Serbiana ₪ 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what province? :)))))))))))) in your dreams? I will keep reverting, of course, no one but Milosevic regime (and the neo-Milosevic regime now in Serbia) does not support that ridiculous indictment. Vedat you are wasting your time answering to this guy. He is determined to just write stuff that irritates Albanians, and we of course have a long experience of such psychological games Serbs are used to playing with us. Did it ever work? :))) Greetings, Vedat! Keep up with the good and constructive work! Ilir pz 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha, guess who also thinks it's just a province:
Click here for the original list of countries. Flag lists like these increase the load on our servers needlessly. Please don't do it again. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sorry for you. You were so sure that only Serbia thinks it's a province. Well, too bad for you that the entire UN consider it a province. [1], [2]. Ha, ha! You lose! --Serbiana ₪ 04:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boris - please note the discussion above. Of course it would be relevant if a person committed war crimes, and certainly any such claims should be fully and fairly investigated - and they have been. The conclusion of the investigations yielded NO CHARGES from the ONLY body competent to hear such claims, the ICTY.
Please also note the following article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060325&articleId=2165
Vedatgashi 09:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so Interpol doesn't consider him a war criminal. I never wrote that he IS a war criminal, I wrote that the Serbian government indicted him as one. ISN'T THAT TRUE?? I'm just saying what is true, why do you not want from me? In Serbia, it's a pretty big issue, and the last time I listened to EURONEWS, every time they mention Agim Ceku, they mention he's indicted by Serbia. The information won't hurt anyone (unless you're Agim Ceku), so it stays. --Serbiana ₪ 04:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

< - - - - - reset indent
Boris, first off, I would like to thank you for listing all of the members of the UN - honestly, how do you regard it constructive to waste all that space on such a statement? Secondly, you are free to state that Serbia indicted Agim Ceku, but it is missleading to stake that plain fact; if you are to mention such a fact, you should also mention that Serbia has NO jurisdiction to make such indictments. You could also state that the only body that has authority to make such claims has NOT indicted him. The history of anymosity between the ethnic Albanians and the ethnic Serbians cannot be discounted - clearly certain actions are politically and ethnically motivated, and have nothing to do with the actual rule of law. To lend credence to such hatred is to support it, and I can not conscience that.

Now, to Fisenko - I would normally have no problem with including as many links as you would like, but my problem with the links i have erased have been extensively detailed. You have provided no defense for them - I would therefore kindly ask you not repost such links before you have a better defense of them. Vedatgashi 08:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vedatgashi, I don't care anymore. Just do whatever you want to the article. The average reader of Wikipedia will get the impression that Serbs are demons anyway, so one sentence will not make a difference. I hate Agim Ceku with all my heart, but what the hell, lets make him a saint. Furthermore, lets just forget about all the crimes Albanians, Croats, Bosnians and Slovenians comitted, and lets focus on the ones that did the biggest crimes - Serbs. I mean, who cares about the others when there is such a blood-thirsty genocidal nation such as mine. Oh, and lets rename Wikipedia, Wiki-anti-Serbia. I'm sure more people would visit it then.
-- Serbiana ₪ 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boris, I am saddened by the fact that you "hate Agim Ceku with all [your] heart." Sadly, your hatred is obvious in your suggested edits. I would appreciate it however if this site could be free from yours or anyone elses hatred. I am by no stretch of the imagination anti-Serbian, and have never, nor will ever, post hateful remarks about any serbian person.Vedatgashi 15:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proven propaganda links removed. He is never been indicted or investigated for any crimes by any relevant authorities.Ferick 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provide the link that shows Serbia has no jurisdiction over Kosovo, and the Serb above, who asked for the link, removes it. That's not nice :)Ferick 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Sections of the Article

[edit]

In an attempt to avert edit-warring, pls post responses here before editting.

There appear to be three points of difference b/w the article as I have reveretd, & Kosmetfan's edits. They are.

1. Reference to other indicted peoples by the Serbian court
In article: With the very same instruments, the Serbian Government has also charged Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and former SRSG Dr. Bernard Kouchner of war crimes as well.
Vs : Not having it in the article as per Kosmetfan's edit.

2. Description of UN Involvement - "intervention" vs "pressure"
In article: Çeku was quickly released in both cases after the UN intervened.
Vs : : : : : Çeku was quickly released in both cases under UN pressure. — as per Kosmetfans edit.

3. Result of Operation Storm
Operation Storm led to Croatia being largely emptied of Serbs. — as per Kosmetfans edit.
Vs : Not being in the article as it currently stands.

IMO;

W.r.t 1), something is needed in the article to point out that the judicial systems in under-developed civil societies like that in Serbia are highly politicised. Hence the detailing of other people indicted is important for the article. Kosmetfan, unless you have information that shows this information is factually incorrect i.e. those people were not indicted by the Serbian court for war crimes, then I think we should leave it in.

W.r.t. 2), I am not too fussed, but I think unless we have details of what the UN stated, then it is abit presumptuous to call it UN pressure - I think the term "intervention" is more appropriate unless Kosmetfan can supply a reliable source that says otherwise.

W.r.t 3), I think the comment is POV and has little relevance to the Agim Ceku article b/c Agim Ceku had no major planning role for operation storm, but instead the joint operation with the Bosnians in Bosnia. The issue of Serb refugees is comprehensively covered to the Operation Storm article as well as the Serbs of Croatia article. Kosmetfan, in light of these points, I would appreciate it if you could articulate the value of the statement to the current article. iruka 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. A report by a reliable source or more established government agency would be better than making comparisons with specific examples of other persons accused.
2. This can be solved just by looking at reliable sources. These words have different meanings; which is it? Maybe it is not certain whether it was "intervention" or "pressure", in which case the issue can be explained more thoroughly, or instead of characterizing it as "pressure" or "intervention" at all, simply state what it is the U.N. did: Did Kofi Annan call up the president of Serbia and ask him politely to stop? Did the U.N. refuse aid shipments if they did not stop, etc. Just say what happened plainly, and use reliable sources.
3. Again, many disputed issues can be resolved by using multiple reliable sources and adhering closely to their description of a situation. —Centrx→talk • 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You people are trying to say any indictment by a group that would indict Clinton is laughable and outrageous and that indicting Ceku is ridiculous because Clinton was indicted. Why is it ridiculous to indict Clinton Kuchner Albright and why then did Interpol follow the indictments if they are ridiculous. Why put Clinton in the Ceku article it makes not sense? What are you trying to say with the Clinton is indicted by the same people who indicted Ceku and why isn't it explained or is it just supposed to be obvious that any group that would indict Clinton is wrong or ILLELIGIMATE? Prove that the Serbian legal system is illegitimate and why then Interpol followed it? KosMetfan 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just write-"Ceku (along with Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and Bernard Kuchner) was indicted by a Serbian court for war crimes. These indictment are not taken seriously by any international organization." Why put the words "with the same instruments." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.201 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is incoherent, racist, and uninformative. KosMetfan 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I can understand differences of opinion, but this is nothing of the sort: KosMetfan's history of contributions show him to be an out and out pro-Serb biased propagandist. It is completely relevant to note that Mr. Ceku was indicted with the same instruments as Clinton, et al. - we wouldn't be arguing it if it weren't. The reason we are being urged to delete it or confusingly change it is to mask the fact that it was a farce in the first place. Argue all you want - but the same document, the same instrument, that indicts Ceku, also indicts Clinton, et al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.165.211 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that it was accepted by Interpol and Ceku was arrested in two countries. The article is completely ignorant of the facts and there is no evidense presented in the article the indictments are farcical. Why don't you put some evidense into the article that they were farcical and UN "intervention" was needed to rescue Ceku from Interpol acting on farcial indictments. KosMetfan 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - 1) KosMet is CLEARLY not POV neutral; and 2) Prime Minister Ceku was never arrested - he was detained breifly twice over confusion related to the above mentioned indictment, but the fact that he was twice stopped and twice quickly released (and this is before he became PM) clearly shows that such indictments do not enjoy international respect and recognition. as for interpol - they released a statement clearly stating that they will not honor the indictments. (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2006/PR200608.asp).

I say we allow interpol itself to be the authority on such matters, not some bigoted prejudiced propagandist like KosMet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.165.211 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have to click on the link to see that the press release is from 2006-probably when Ceku was already "prime minister" and since Leaders have immunity from Interpol what you posted was completely useless and entirely irrelevent. Why don't you just forget about trying to post facts because you don't have any. KosMetfan 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all painfully aware of the fact that you have no desire to read authoratative and unbiased sources such as a report from the body you cite. Indeed, the article does mention the immunity that heads of state are accorded, but IMPORTANTLY, it also mentions that: "Mr Ceku was never the subject of an Interpol international wanted persons notice, otherwise known as a Red Notice." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.165.211 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That diffusion was duly registered in Interpol’s database of wanted persons.
Ceku was in their list of wanted persons. End of story.
KosMetfan 22:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The interpol link says it all. The points I got from the statement was:
  • Warrant issue by Serbian court i.e. not interpol warrant;
  • Interpol have to accept it - they do not have the authority to abolish warrants by national courts;
  • The warrant is suspended b/c it is incompatiable with Interpols rules due to immunity enjoyed by heads of state.
Where does this leave the warrant out for Bill Clinton et al - I think this still needs to be in the article. iruka 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not article about who Serbian courts indicted it is about Ceku. Ceku was indicted by a Serbian court and was detained by two countries because Ceku's name was in Interpol's database of wanted persons. What does anyone else have to do with that? KosMetfan 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's relevant b/c he has been indicted by the court of a country which was in military & political conflict with him & his military force - raising the issue of a politicised warrant. Given that Serbia amongst other countries in the region still do not have functional (in terms of efficacy & indpendence) judiciaries, the other indictments are evidence of this. iruka 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fact is a fact. There is no mention of the legitimacy given to the indictments by international entities like Interpol. KosMetfan 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - the fact that the warrant is suspended by Interpol b/c it contradicts their rules of operation is very pertinent. The fact that Agim Ceku is a head of state recognised by the international community is also a fact. The fact that Kosovo status negotiations are still in progress is also a fact. iruka 00:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two times he was detained he was not PM and therefore not immune.KosMetfan 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet he was released. iruka 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under UN Pressure. They also allowed Haradinaj to be involved in politics even though he was an indicted war criminal who is now on trial while they banned other people from being involved in politics. KosMetfan 14:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the fact that Haradinaj is on trial at the ICTY, whilst others were banned from politics means that there is a vetting process, and that Agim Ceku has passed that vetting process, namely that there is no credible evidence of war crimes otherwise he would be in the Hague right now. 14:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No because of the fact that even having Haradinaj there is causing protests and other things. They UN doesn't want too much trouble. 63.215.27.201 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

[edit]

I can not understand how problems in this page occur? Honestly,this article lacks of info but also of NPOV elements. Can someone confirm that this all is NPOV and free from violations. I do not have info about balkan lands or states.Thanks82.114.81.147 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very seriously lacking in NPOV

[edit]

This guy is quite vicious and the article is quite positive. Very poor by Wikipedia standards. ;Bear (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, don't you think "quite vicious" is itself not exactly a NPOV statement? You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. We have a very strong policy against using articles to belittle living individuals. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FACTS

[edit]

Slobodan Milosevic was never convicted, as you claim. He was indicted, which means that a government organization formally claimed that he committed various crimes, which they failed to prove before he died. Similarly Vojislav Seselj, is indicted (formal accusation, innocent until proven guilty) for crimes, seven hours before the end of trial, the prosecution indicted (formal accusation, innocent until proven guilty) him for another charge.

The most important facts are that in both of the articles, of the said above individuals, there is a sentence describing their indictments. Agim Ceku is indicted (formal accusation, innocent until proven guilty) by Serbia for war crimes and accordingly we should have a sentence in his header as well.Mike Babic (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agim Çeku. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agim Çeku. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agim_Çeku&oldid=1255783385"