Talk:Agim Çeku/Archive 1

Archive 1

On the picture

I changed the picture as i think this is a more appropriate one for this page.--Ferick 01:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is biased

There is ample evidence that this article is biased; I will list but a few:

The claim that Albanians have conducted “wholesale ethnic cleansing” of non-Albanians in Kosovo is laughable. Certainly there was violence and retribution against some non-Albanians following the war, but none of this has ever been deemed “ethnic cleansing” by a body competent to adjudicate such claims, and certainly not “wholesale.” The exact opposite is in fact true – the Serbian Government conducted an admitted campaign to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Albanians from Kosovo. It was indeed these efforts that lead to the NATO bombing of Serbia.

“his [Ceku’s] previous war crimes” - - the only court to have indicted Ceku for war crimes is the court of Serbia, in an indictment not recognized internationally, and certainly not by the United Nations. These same courts indicted PM Tony Blair and Pres. Bill Clinton. In fact, the very same indictment that charged Ceku, also charged the former SRSG for Kosovo, Dr. Bernard Kouchner. The article intimates, moreover, that Ceku is actually guilty of these war crimes – such a claim is belied by the fact that the ICTY has openly stated that no charges against Ceku have been or will be made. Of course, the ICTY is the only body with jurisdiction to make such charges.

“When asked why the UN…has not …sent [Ceku] to The Hague …the American policeman just shrugs and says "politics."” - The claim that “politics” is the reason Ceku is not charged ignores the fact that no person has been immune by the Hague Tribunal – as is evidenced by the indictment of both Milosevic and Ramush Haradinaj while he was a sitting Prime Minister. Again, the ICTY has not ever charged Ceku, and has plainly stated that it does not plan to. The claim that the decision not to charge Ceku is somehow related to “politics’ is libelous and certainly not shared with any reputable news sources.

“Canadian soldiers who bore witness to the terrible atrocities committed by Agim Ceku” – The claim is made that Canadian soldiers not only bore witness to ethnic cleansing, but somehow bore witness to Ceku committing these “atrocities.” Of course this is never substantiated by any record of such atrocities. No quotes from Canadian soldiers, and certainly no public record – no eye witness reports, no forensic evidence, nor any other manner of record besides pure unsubstantiated and unattributed hearsay.

Posted in The Halifax Herald, The Windsor Star and The Pembroke Observer – With all due respect to the Halifax Herald (“the best source of local news in Nova Scotia”), The Windsor Star (a daily newspaper for the city of Windsor Ontario), and the Pembroke Observer (“proudly serving the upper Ottawa Valley” with local news and sports) – these are not even the more respected news sources in Canada. Surely we can find some articles from more discerning sources. The crazy thing is that we cannot even be sure that these articles appeared even in these periodicals, as we are linked to a website rather than the newspaper sites. A search of the three newspaper is not forthcoming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vedatgashi (talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC).

Mr. Vedat Gashi with an Albanian nickname like this (are you by any chance related Mr. Vedat Gashi, Chief Legal Advisor to the Ministry of Local Government Administration of Kosovo ?), I find you to be likely somewhat more biased than Canadian war reporter Scott Taylor.

For more "substantiated record of atrocities committed by Agim Ceku" in Bosnia I would refer you to following books dedicated to Canadian peacekeepers experience in Bosnia:

• Tested mettle: Canada's peacekeepers at war (Esprit de Corps Publications, 1998) by Scott Taylor and Brian Nolan, ISBN: 1895896088.

• The Ghosts of Medak Pocket: the Story of Canada's Secret War (Vintage Canada, 2005) by Carol Off, ISBN: 0679312943.

Fisenko 02:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As for your attack on me:: Congratulations Matlock, you figured out who I am by the fact that I clearly state who I am, amazing detective work. On the other side, we are only to guess who you are and what your biases are by your use of "fisenko".

As for your new "sources":: The fact that you cite a book by the same author as that of the article you cite is actually damning to your argument - if for no other reason than it links us to the propaganda rag that you cite. To quote one "reviewer" - "Taylor does an excelent[sic] job of denouncing[sic] the NATO and Western anti-Serb propaganda[sic]" - certainly his views are not in the mainstream. These are not literary masterpieces.

But even if you did cite literary masterpieces, it would not matter - whether or not one has committed "atrocities" in the former Yugoslavia is not up to the publishers of "Esprit de Corps Magazine" - but rather the responsibility falls to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("ICTY") - and ICTY has clearly stated that THERE ARE NO CHARGES AGAINST CEKU. If the events you cite are so well documented certainly the ICTY prosecutors would also be aware of it and have made the appropriate charges.

This is not a matter for subjective disagreement. The ICTY was set up to resolve just these sorts of questions - and it has. AGAIN, The ICTY has not now, nor ever charged Agim Ceku with any crime, whatsoever. The link is pure pro-Serb propaganda and has no place in any encyclopedia. vedatgashi 08:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Vegat Gashi if ITCY has no political will to publicly charge Agim Ceku, it does not mean there is no evidence he is linked to war crimes. Croatian general Ceku was known to be the brains behind military operations in Medak Pocket in 1993 and Operation Storm in Krajna in 1995. Both operations resulted in large-scale ethnic cleansing campaigns. Here is, for example, a detailed account of war crimes committed by Ceku's men in the Medak Pocket published by the Canadian Army. [1]

PS: In any case, on this particular subject, you are the last person who should be asked to decide what has a place in encyclopaedia. Fisenko 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that his men may have committed war crimes doesn't automatically mean that he was responsible for them. The doctrine of command responsibility only applies if he knew or should have known that they were acting illegally. In any case, we can't draw any conclusions from the fact that he hasn't been charged. It doesn't prove anything either way (i.e. whether he is innocent or not) - it simply indicates that for whatever reason, they didn't prosecute. Maybe he really was innocent; maybe there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction. We can't know for sure, so we can't draw any conclusions on the matter. -- ChrisO 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What would make me any more or less qualified than you to discuss a submission to this site? I am not employed by Mr. Ceku and my proffered edit is fact based rather than a statement of opinion. You will note that I did not complain about the article from Serb newspaper Politiken: though one could easily guess from the title and source that it will be biased against the ethnically Albanian Ceku, I have not read the article so I will not prejudge it. Submissions should be judged on their merit rather than on their supposed biases, especially when the discussion concerns facts.

As for your statement about the ICTY - you are wrong to call it a political body. The ICTY is a judicial body. This is the same body the indicted Ramush Haradinaj - the sitting Prime Minister of Kosovo at the time of his indictment. PM Haradinaj was widely praised by the international community for being an effective Prime Minister and positive political force in Kosovo. If the ICTY was a political, rather than judicial body, PM Haradinaj would never have been charged.

In fact, the very fact that you the ICTY a political rather than a judicial body shows your own biases. Take your soapbox elsewhere, start a conspiracy theory blog somewhere else if you'd like, but please leave this encyclopedia for stated, verifiable facts from reputable sources. Vedatgashi 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I also just noted that you included an article from 1999 that says Ceku COULD be indicted. The article was reporting on pure speculation - speculation that has clearly been denied by the ICTY in the 7 or years since the article was published. The only reason you would include that article is to mislead the uninitiated reader - smearing Ceku. Your actions are reprehensible - your choices of articles speak for themselves. please push your point of views elsewhere fisenko. Vedatgashi 21:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent page changes

The aim of the KLA was NOT to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of Serbs. KLA attacks tended to focus on MUP policemen, military, and the paramilitary groups operating in Kosovo. (Including : Arkan's fighters, Frenkie's boys, Lightening and others) While Serb civilians were certainly (and tragically) killed in the conflict there as not a widespread and systematic attempt to expel them. (This was most recently reaffirmed by the Limaj Court in the ICTY, see Limaj decision at para. 225 - see generally for discussion on subject paras. 191-228)

Finally you've edited the sentence to read 'the KLA's stated purpose was...the ethnic cleasing of Serbs" This is a ridiculous statement. Of course their stated purpose was not such. Their stated purpose as defined by the Nov. 1997 official first public appearance of the KLA at Halit Gecaj's funeral was to fight the Serbian forces massacring Albanians. Now regardless of what you belive to be their actual purpose, that was their stated purpose. That is an empirical fact recorded for history. Your addition is a subjective conclusion about cleansing Serbs. This should not be on here. Let readers decide what the KLA actually did through their own research and presention of facts. Please either cite such gross subjective dribble or leave it off Wiki. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.114.95.20 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

On Çeku's defense to war crime charges

I do not think it is right for the Agim Ceku entry to detail his defense to war criminal charges so I deleted a lot of the anti war crimes indictment stuff. They are not facts just what his defense would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.227 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I keep changing the word "competent" because the people who made the indictment could be competent just not respected or legitimate. I used the word prestigious because that is what the ICTY is. I could use respected or legitimate. There is no evidence that the Serbs are incompetent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.227 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Competent is NOT the right word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.227 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The international authority was competent. It was Interpol acknowledging the Serbian arrest warrant that got him arrested twice in other countries. With a link at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.226 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Full protection

This slow edit war has gone on long enough. It's time consensus was reached, so start talking. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So the thing is that when Ceku was arrested in 2003 and 2004 it was because Interpol acknoledged the indictment by Serbia. So unless you think Interpol is incompetant when it comes to arrest warrants you have to believe that the entry is WRONG when it says that no competant organization was involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.227 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that this locking was done only to prevent people from stating the facts about Ceku's war crimes indictments as there has been no discussion at all.

Please unlock editing capability as the Ceku article is stridently anti-Serb and needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.227 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pls do not unlock w/o consensus. I think the article is quite professional as it stands. From the history, there appears to be only two disputed sections - one listing other similarly indicted people under the Serb court system - I think it is important to keep this context as the Republic of Serbia (like most countries in the region) still lack many aspects of a civil society, including a fully functional judiciary operating to the convention of separation of powers.

The other section that seems to be disputed is the line stating "Despite the fact that PM Çeku is not suspected of any crime by any competent international authority the...". Again it is important b/c of the need for context b/c the primary institution for processing war crimes (ICTY) has not indicted him, and we are dealing with a region of the world where war crimes accusations stem from a political opponent & are part of political posturing in the negotiations for Kosovo's final status.

The issue is that Interpol is a competant organization and it recognized the Serbian indictment which led to Ceku's arrest. The idea that the indictment is illegimate comes from anti-Serb racism or a pro-Albanian bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KosMetfan (talk • contribs) 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You conveniently ignored the fact that he was released by the police. The arrest & subsequent release further suggests that the judicial system in Serbia is highly politicised, with some interpol warrants forwarded by it legitimate & others clearly politicised. The actions of police acting on an interpol warrant merely indicate a informal process of filtering out the politicised warrants, with Agim Ceku's release confirming the dubiousness of the original warrant by Serbia. The existince of the warrant in the interpol database is not a sign of legitimacy but a sign that no formal vetting process exists - a subjective task @ the best of times. iruka 00:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You are wildly and totally incorrect. The fact that he was released says more about the politicized nature of the EU when it comes to the Kosovo Albanian issue. The EU and the UN did not want the Albanians in Kosovo rioting over the arrest so they did everything they could to get him out. Why are you so interested in posting falsehoods and inaccurate things? Kosmetfan. 15:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet the EU & UN allowed the ICTY indictment & arrest of his predecessor, another Kosovar Albanian. I think there is more evidence that an indictment stemming from Serbia against an political & military foe is going to carry signifcantly less weight than the actions of international organisations. To put it simply, most sources trust the EU & UN to be less politicised w.r.t Kosovo than Serbia. iruka 15:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The only line I would have issue with is the word expelled in "Operation Storm in 1995 that ended the war in Croatia and expelled most of the Serbian population from Croatia." as it represents a POV opinion. In light of the lack of evidence for such a claim, I would suggest replacing it with - "Operation Storm in 1995 that ended the war in Croatia, with most of the Serbian population from Croatia forced to flee or evacuated by their political leadership." iruka 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That is hyper political anti-Serb nonsense. The Croatian government forces went into Krajina specifically to expell the Serbs living there. You want to make the article more incorrect and biased as well as racist angainst Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KosMetfan (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What you have stated is an accusation - not fact. It is presented in the article as fact - a clear error. Countering your accusation is the strategic concern of the Bihac pocket (a UN safe haven that was about to fall like Srebrenica). You also have the testimony of Peter Galbraith that counters this and notes that Serbs were ordered out by their political leadership. I also question the undue weight given to Agim's role in the Croatian army, which was not significant I may add. Pls also sign your comments. iruka 00:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a Croat military movement against the Serb areas of Croatia. That is a fact. It is a fact the Serbs were forced out of the Krajina region. Were all the Serbs that left forced out? The answer is probably no but thousands and thousands were forced out by the Croat military -that is ethnic cleansing which Ceku was a part of. Were all the Albanians in Kosovo forced out? No many left under indirect pressure but they are all considered to be ethnically cleansed. Kosmetfan 15:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Allow me to correct you on a number of points.

• The military operation's objective (operation storm) was to restore Croat govt control over it's internationally recognised territory in the absense of progress in UN sponsored negotiations;& relieve the seige of the Bihac pocket, which had it fallen, it would have all but cemented Serb positions in Croatia, changing the balance in the peace negotiations such that the Croatian Serbs would no longer see the need to talk;
• There was encouragement in Western capitals for the Croat military operation bc/ Bihac was a safe haven like Srebrenica, and there was concern that the humanitarian disaster of Srebrenica would be repeated. Thus the military operation had a humanitarian function of preventing the genocide witnessed in Srebrenica.

This is a totally outrageous AND racist lie. How is it humanitarian to kill and expell Serbs from the Krajina region of Croatia? KosMetfan 16:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken in your accusation - allow me to put in chronological order for you:

• Srebrenica is declared a UN Safe Haven;
• Bosnian Serbs launch offensive against safe haven (for whatever reason - this is not a judgement but a description);
• Srebrenica falls to Serbs with the ensuing Srebrenica massacre - this was defined as genocide by the ICTY in the Hague;
• Bihac is a UN Safe Haven;
• Bosnian Serbs together with the Croatian Serbs launch offensive against safe haven in Bihac;
• Croatian Army together with the Amry BiH launch offensive to break seige & prevent a Srebrenica like massacre, and in the process regaining control over their internationally recognised territory.

There is no reason to believe that had Bihac fallen to the Serb military, that it would have shared a different fate to Srebrenica. I hope this clears up the matter for you, and encourage you visit the relevant links. Thanking you :) iruka 02:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• In most cases, the places were deserted when the Croatian army got there such as Obrovac, Benkovac and Knin;
• The Croatian military deliberately left open escape routes b/c had they not, they would have been accused of keeping people in the country against their free will.

The only facts we have are;

• There was a successful military operation;
• Serbs left en mass - we can debate motives i.e. did they leave b/c of fear of what might happen; ordered out (as per testimony in the Milosevic trial); but all we know is there was an exodus - to say they were forced implies that they were evicted which in most cases is not correct;
• The accusations of ethnic cleansing centre around damage to property where it is viewed that this was done to prevent return of the refugees, not in "forcing" people to leave;
• To date there has not been an ICTY conviction confirming ethnic cleansing took place.

FOr these reasons, the accusation should be stated as an accusation. iruka 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not an "accusation." It is a fact that people who stayed behind were killed by Croat forces after most had been expelled. KosMetfan 16:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven' addressed the points I have raised but repeated an unsubstantiated claim. Allow me to correct you & advise that there were no systematic massacres, but isolated incidents of individual crimes which were subsequently prosecuted. There have been no ICTY convictions that confirm any ethnic cleansing during operation Storm in Croatia. I challenge you to provide a source (such as the ICTY conviction for Srebrenica & classing it as genocide). As such, it stands as an accusation only, compromised by evidence in the Milosevic trial that points to an orderly withdrawal organised by the Croatian Serb leadership.

Upon consideration, I think we should remove any such line, because I believe the intent is to pair Agim Ceku with accusations of war crimes in the operation. However he was only a soldier & his role was only significant in the Bosnian conflict (I believe that is Operation Maestral). He has not been indicted by the ICTY for any crimes, nor are there any allegations of him committing crimes in Croatia.

I think we should mention that he was in the Croatian military, but to mention the impact of operation storm (particularly in POV terms) has no relevance to him. It is a POV way of trying to character assasinate Agim Ceku by the stigma of war crimes allegations, that incidently are solely sourced from Serbia, a one time political and military foe. iruka 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to B92
The link in the article to B92 (re: Serbia's condemnation of nomination of Agim Ceku) is out of date and does not point to relevant article. The links needs to be updated or removed, as perhaps the accompanying text in teh article. iruka 01:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro Albanian war criminals

Outrageous anti-serb propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.227 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KosMetfan (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but the words yourself... go... and something else spring to mind. Now what can that last word be? How's that for saying something, my anonymous friend? Davu.leon 06:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)