Jump to content

Talk:Dragan Vasiljković/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

helpme

Hello!I edited this talk page because i don't know what is wrong with the page i edited-Dragan Vasiljković-so i would like someone to say something about it as soon as possible so i can fix it.I don't know why was that box placed on top of the article,but i would like to know what should i do to make it go away.--Captain ginyu 18:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the article was tagged with cleanup. From the article, it needs wikification, (making links), and needs spaces between punctuation. Let me know if you require assistance. :) GfloresTalk 19:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The few things that I see that needed cleaning up would be:
  1. A citation for what issue of the journal The Australian had an article about the man, including date of publication

The article was: Serbian death squad commander alive and well and teaching golf in Perth. Natasha Robinson and Paige Taylor, The Australian, 8 September 2005. One of the journalists of this article (Natasha Robinson) was a finalist in the 2006 News Ltd "News Awards", Young Journalists of the Year category as a result of her work on this article as well as two other war crimes related articles, a further one also featuring Captain Dragan ([1]).Merxa (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. Clean up the punctuation and grammar of the "War crimes" section
  2. The last paragraph said that Australians thought that something was "absurd". What Australians said this? Was this printed anywhere? Is there a quote that can be used like "Such and such leader of the Australian government stated in an interview that "X" was absurd"?
Dismas|(talk) 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The language used in this article is simply appalling and something needs to be done about it. I have made some head way into correcting the language and hope that someone else will do the rest.

Looks better - just a few more comments

  • Lead paragraph says he is currently a golf instructor. Last sentence says he is in prison. It is not clear what order these events are in. Needs clarifying.
  • There is still no reference to articles published in Australia.

'Captain Dragan raped me': woman tells trial of prison ordeal. Selma Milovanovic, The Age, April 29, 2009 - 2:38PM [2]

Ex-prisoner tells of beatings at fortress prison Selma Milovanovic, The Age, April 29 [3]

Croatian prisoners 'forced to kiss baby bear's backside'. Selma Milovanovic, The Age, April 28, 2009 [4]

Accusers give evidence of torture. Selma Milovanovic, The Age, April 28, 2009 [5]

Alleged war criminal threatened prisoner, court told. Selma Milovanovic, The Age, April 27, 2009 [6]

Alleged war criminal to face accusers. Selma Milovanovic, The Age, April 21, 2009 [7]Merxa (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Some copyediting is needed, but that is a lower priority than the other two comments.

If you then feel that the "clean-up" tag can be removed, I suggest you contact the person who put the tag on the page (you can find this out by looking in the page history). The person you want is User:Johntex. He may be able to say if he agrees that the tag can be removed. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Birthday

FYI: Birthday seems to differ in de:Dragan_Vasiljković... --katpatuka 08:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

B92

Really unclear what this means:

Dragan also helped with securing the Radio station Studio B and B92 in Belgrade during popular uprising against Slobodan Milosevic and help Serbia achive freedom.

Does this mean Dragan helped shut down B92 and Studio B during the popular uprising? Helped defend it against the government's attempts to shut it down? Shermozle 05:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

Well, I think this article is heading in the wrong, POV direction. On the other side he is considered a murder by all the people. as that is what he is killing innocent people.--Captain ginyu 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Seems like a bit of a puff piece on a member of a highly discredited organisation. It seems biased to me and references seem weak. I understand there was an article in the UK's Observer nrewspaper in 1991 which portrays a more factual light but I am unable to source it yet

Request for comment

This article expresses personal sympathies for a man against whom very serious charges of war crimes have been alleged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snaark (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Proposal for Deletion AGAIN

My proposal that this article be deleted was removed without any significant changes being made. The article strongly reflects one person’s POV. I have again proposed that it be deleted. If my notice is removed again without satisfactory changes being made, I will report the author.

Below, I have explained clearly my reasons for proposing that the article be deleted. In the first paragraph, almost every sentence is written in a biased tone, or contains information that is not verifiable.

I have removed a paragraph here as per policy because this page was used to express defamatory and libelious claims.

I understand that Dragan is revered by SOME Serbs. However, he is considered a war criminal by many (Serbs and Croats). This article should not convey a POV for OR against him – it should be neutral and factual! Otherwise it should not exist!

I am neither Serbian, not Croatian, so I have no horse in this race. However there are MANY who believe an injustice is being perpetrated against this man. 121.45.235.154 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to express your own point of view, especially to lobby support for someone who is charged with a crime! That’s what Myspace is for. It is an encyclopedia – i.e. it is supposed to be objective!

Read the rules for Wikipedia if you want to write here! If you can’t do that, write nothing!


… been held in an Australian prison for over one and a half years with convicted prisoners, yet he himself has not been charged.

Your tone implies that he is the victim of an injustice. This is your POV!

As an Australian, I can tell you, if a man is held for over a year without charge, then yes, it is a very unusual injustice. Especially when he was already cleared of crimes by the International Court in Hague. This is a vindictive prosecution against a good man who's only crime was to oppose the fascist Ustashe racists. 121.45.235.154 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What makes Dragans case interesting…

Interesting to who? You? You are expressing your POV.

is that even though he has been an Australian citizen for over 30 years, no evidence of the allegations against him was required by the Australian government.

Again, use a neutral tone!

If it was the USA, Canada, NZ or the UK requesting his extradition, an evidence case is mandatory (House of commons 2003).

Not verifiable!

Dragan is revered by the Serbian people because after his role in the war

Not verifiable!

The Serbian people believe…

You do not speak for all Serbs!

They are petitioning for him to face the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague if he must face trial.

Are all Serbs in the world are signing this petition?

However, they also claim that he has already faced 18 hours of questioning at the War Crimes Tribunal and even rejected an offer of immunity for anything that he might have done. He was released and not one of his men were indicted.

Again, you are conveying YOUR point of view that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Therefore, the Serbian community believe that the accusations against Dragan are unfounded and are just a means to get him into Croatia. They are also surprised that Dragan (AKA Daniel Snedden) has not received the public support that David Hicks has.

This comparison is stupid - Hicks and Dragan have nothing in common.

In July 2007 Dragan was able to commence the defamation proceedings against Nationwide news. The court found that six out of ten of the statements against Dragan were libellous and defamatory.The proceedings are stood over in the Supreme Court of New South Wales until 27th July 2007.

You are only selecting the results of the trial that support your POV!.

Moving on

Could we keep all future talk below here, to make discussion easier to read please.

I have printed out 10 or so newspaper articles on this individual, and his various court appearances. Once I've read them all carefully I intend to rewrite this from scratch. I'll put a proposed outline here as soon as I am able. Kevin 04:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please delete

I strongly agree with the contributor two places up. This is a propaganda piece for someone accused of very serious warcrimes. It is not balanced or fair. It contains very doubtful information about a living person which seems to be an effort in P.R. for his ongoing court cases. Please delete. If someone wishes to write a balanced article try sourcing an Observer (UK) article from approx 1992 and a subsequent interview on BBC's Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman. The article as it stands is damaging to Wikipedia Rpersse 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a complete rewrite, probably as little more than a stub. There are plenty of sources in Australian newspapers as well to give a balanced coverage. Hopefully I'll be done this week. Kevin 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
See User:Kevin/Dragan Vasiljkovic for progress, and feel free to contribute. I think a properly sourced lead paragraph is the first priority. Kevin 23:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are the other comments signed, but this one below is not? Anyaka (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverted to earlier version

I have reverted the article to an earlier version, before additional changes were made. The changes by this user reflects his own point of view. Considering that the subject of the article is accused of heinous war crimes, this is unnacceptable. The article still needs a complete re-write, but I do not have time for this.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dragan Vasiljković. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dragan Vasiljković/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Sheer self publicising bias from someone facing potential warcrimes charges. Please delete! Rpersse 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

the Dragan Vasiljkovic article

His criminal record is all wrong see notice board dispute pages on Dragan. He had 4 appeals not thirteen. The Commonwealth and Croatia also had an appeal and a cross appeal. He was not "in combat" in Bosnia-Herzegovina only the Krajina theater of the Croatian war. They are separate wars in separate places with separate parties. There are no Muslims for example in the Croatian war. His years of service were not from 1991 to 1995 even on the Wiki article. How can this be correct if he ran for president of Serbia in 1992?  There was a ceasefire in the Krajina war in Croatia from December 1991 to January 1993 under the U.N. Vance Plan. His service was in the Krajina army from April 1991 to 3 August 1991 and then from January 1993 to December 1994. The Croatian war started on 26 August 1991 at Kijevo in the Krajina (See The Martic Case). Only Croatia believes the war started earlier in June/July 1991 and Croatia was not recognized by the E.U. or Australia until mid January 1992 .Before that the Croatian nationalists were just a pack of rebels. ABOVE ALL Dragan Vasiljkovic was 10 years in jail without charge 3 of those in solitary so how he can be tried now (still in jail) because he has already more than served his entire sentence before charged on the sentencing principles in article 24 of the ICTY Statute (that includes Yugoslav criminal sentencing practices) for the unpleaded and no evidence allegations made by Croatia to Australia? There is no High Court order putting Mr. Vasiljkovic in jail. No Court including the High Court puts a person at liberty in jail. What a Court does is determine whether someone arrested by the executive is lawfully in custody and if so extend that custody in the same or an altered form. Mr. Vasiljkovic was wrongly grabbed by the federal police in May 2010 while at liberty without an arrest warrant taken straight to jail and was never put before a Court or a magistrate for identification to determine if being grabbed without arrest warrant by the federal police was lawful. This is dynamite because he did 5 years jail 2 in solitary without Court i.d. without an arrest warrant and was sent to Croatia without being i.d.ed by an Australian Court. I can prove this if you want conclusively from the public record. Look how old the Wiki article is and he was still in jail without charge until 2016. I do not know what you can do about the article other than scrap it because if you look at all the evidence in the ICTY, have a copy of the Croatian allegations and trace through how he has been treated by the Commonwealth and the press it defies the imagination. I am not Serbian. If you want to know the full truth you will have powerful people in the Government after you because all the primary evidence and law does not lead to DV but leads back to the powerful people who have put him in jail for 10 years without charges. What judge would sit on trial of a person who has already done 10 years jail for the matters that judge has to try?  A Croatian judge who is employed by the enemy state over an armed conflict where the accused person is a soldier that fought against that state under flag and uniform in that armed conflict. They ALL want to bury him so the truth will not come out. I have a lot more but as Jack Nicholson said in 'A FEW GOOD MEN' "The truth. You can't handle the truth". I can show you where most of it can be found on the net but do you really want me to./ B. Slowgrove.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.16 (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 

On Dragan Vasiljkovic ; I want to deal with the western media history of the Croatian and Bosnian war in the former Yugoslavia and first note that no one is indicted in the ICTY over "the civil war in the former Yugoslavia"because there are three distinct armed conflicts with different parties in different places at different times in the former Yugoslavia. There are no Muslims in Croatian war for instance. Each ICTY indictment must relate to an actual specified armed conflict. The expression "civil war in former Yugoslavia" has reference only in the media and in context makes all media reporting on those armed conflicts misleading. All "war reporting" in the western press relates only to the war in Bosnia and is confined to the Eastern Bosnia theatre including Sarajevo where 10% of the journalists were stationed. This why there is much negative reporting on the "Serbs" instead of the eastern Bosnian Serbs. The other 90% of the press except for a few brave wanderers reported from the safety of Zagreb.This is how the misleading name "civil war in former Yugoslavia" arose and why there is no real western media reporting on the war in Croatia where Vasiljkovic served. Zagreb was also where much of the commentary of film shot in eastern Bosnia war was added and often the press commentary does not align with the film being shown. For instance there is no media reporting of the Bosnian war in the west on the Croatian forces that with Croatian local paramilitaries occupied large parts of western Bosnia beginning in June 1992 as part of a claimed enlarged Croatian state ( Source: Prlic ICTY indictment and conviction: ICTY Celebici Case concerning a jointly run Croatian and Bosnian Muslim concentration camp containing minority Bosnian Serbs in the west). So using media reports to support the Wiki article on Dragan Vasiljkovic is misleading since there was no real western media reporting on the war in Croatia that has two theaters the Krajina and Eastern Slovenia. Vasiljkovic served only in the Krajina army as a captain from April 1991 to August 1991 and then again in January 1993 to December 1994. There is a ceasefire from December 1991 to January 1993 under the Vance Plan in th Croatian war ( See UNSCRs especially in January 1993 where Croatian nationalists broke the U.N Vance Plan ceasefire, attacked the Krajina and killed UNPROFOR U.N soldiers enforcing the ceasefire and U.N safety zones. Never properly reported in western media) The Croatian war began first on 26 August 1991 at Kijevo in the Krajina and then later that month at the earliest at Vukovar in Eastern Slovenia with Arkan. Source ICTY Martic case: Arkan indictment--Arkan died before trial but each ICTY indictment is supported by prima facie evidence). Straight away you can see Vasiljkovic has nothing to do with Arkan despite Australian press assumptions. The Croatian allegations against Vasiljkovic to Australia are at Knin and Glina in late June/late July 1991 and Bruska in February 1993 ( Source Croatian warrant and request for V to Australia). The June/July 1991 allegations are based on the Croatian "political and historical account of the Home land" (this account has been repeatedly rejected by the ICTY- source rejected Gotovina amicus curiae application to ICTY on 13 October 2006 see also earlier rejected Croatian amicus rejected and criticized 6 October 2006 & ors). There are a lot of Croatian rejected amicus on this basis and none by Serbia. Croatia says the war began on 25 June 1991 with their declaration of independence. This is not accepted by the ICTY in Martic that says the Croatian war began with the JNA shelling of Kijevo on 26 August 1991 and Croatia was not recognized by the E.U or Australia until 15/16 January 1991 ( Source Australian recognition of the Republic of Australia under the Keating Labor govt). The Croatian declaration of independence of 25 June 1991 was declared illegal by the Yugoslav Constitutional Court on 30/31 October 1991 ( Source OSCE; Baddington Commission). In June/July 1991 to December 1991 especially after the E.U. Carrington plan and then Vance Plan western media reports on Yugoslavia were connected to the fall of the Berlin wall and were that the people of Yugoslavia were becoming democratic peacefully by defying conscription and throwing off the bounds of communism comparison being made to People's Power under Corizon Aquino in the Philippines in the mid-1980s. Slovenia ceded peacefully and armed conflict avoided ( Source western media press reports in late 1991).It is not until independence reaches Bosnia and their declaration of independence that western media criticism of " the war" and "Serbs"begins. The Croatian Knin allegations against Vasiljkovic are before the armed conflict began and Martic was convicted over treatment of the Knin prisoners by Martic police and also Mladic with the JNA 9th corps at the Knin barracks from 26 August 1991 i.e Kijevo onward not the Krajina army. (Source Martic indictment, findings and Appeals Chamber where V is not mentioned; Croatian Amnesty Act 1996 that declares an amnesty on all ordinary crimes having a nexus to the Croatian war that are not war crimes under international law). Vasiljkovic was politically banished from the Krajina on 3 August 1991 by Babic and Milosevic ( Source Van Lynden testimony of Sky News on or about 6 June 2006 in Martic case before Moloto J that he was with Vasiljkovic at Glina traveled with him to Knin and on the way V and his men arrested members of Martic's Serb militia for atrocities carried out at a mental hospital against Croatian elderly patients. Van Lynden then attended a farewell dinner with V and Babic in Knin. V's men without Vasiljkovic were transferred from Ubida air strip in the Krajina to Mount Fosca Gore in Serbia on 26 August 1991 and did not take part in the battle of Kijevo. V was barred from going to Mount Fosca Gora by Serbian State Security ( All sourced in ICTY Stanisic and Simatovic). V's private telephone in Belgrade was tapped by Serbian State Security ( i.e Communists) from 5 August 1991 up to about July 1992 as a potential western spy with links to the United States and western media-- no doubt Van Lynden of Sky News ( Source:  ICTY Stanisic and Simatovic). All Serb ICTY war crimes occurred against non-Serbs in the Krajina were between 26 August 1991 and June 1992. V has an alibi.( See ICTY indictment pattern for Croatian war). All Glina war crimes are from September 1991 onward( Source Martic case) The only war crimes committed from January 1993 to December 1994 when V was in the Krajina war were by Croatian nationalists forces at the Medak pocket ( See ICTY indictment and rule 11 bis transfer case against Ademi).See my posts to the notice board page. I have so much more. DO YOU SEE HOW PROPER SOURCING IS DONE YET WIKIPEDIA PERSISTS WITH THIS WIKI ARTICLE SINCE AT LEAST 2007 AND DO NOT STATE THAT V WAS NOT CHARGED BY CROATIA NO EVIDENCE WAS GIVEN TO SUPPORT ITS ALLEGATIONS V WAS BANNED FROM BRINGING THE ABOVE EVIDENCE AND MUCH MORE IN AUSTRALIA( SOURCE EXTRADITION ACT) AND V HAS BEEN IN JAIL 10 YEARS ( SEE COMMONWEALTH A-G PRESS RELEASE 20 JANUARY 2006 AND FULL FEDERAL COURT 4 SEPTEMBER 2009 V WAS GRABBED AGAIN BY FEDERAL POLICE ON OR ABOUT MID MAY 2010 ACCORDING TO AUSTRALIAN MEDIA HYSTERIA BUT NOT IDENTIFIED BY THE COURTS AND THERE IS NO RECORD OF REMAND IN MAY 2010 INCLUDING 3 YEARS SPENT IN SOLITARY.V HAS SERVED HIS SENTENCE WITHOUT BEING CONVICTED (SOURCE ARTICLE 24 ICTY STATUTE SILVJICANNON CASE, PLAVISEK CASE AND BABIC CASE). SCRAP THE ARTICLE UNLESS YOU CAN DO PROPER RESEARCH AND STOP RELYING ON THE MEDIA EVERY BIT OF IT IS WRONG. IN THE WIKI ARTICLE V'S CRIMINAL RECORD IS WRONG BUT WIKI RELIES ON A CROATIAN NATIONALIST NEWSPAPER. THIS IS NOT A SOURCE. I HAVE ALREADY PROVED V'S INNOCENCE USING ICTY BUT CAN GO EVEN FURTHER. THE REMARK IN THE MARTIC JUDGMENT REFERRED TO IN THE WIKI ARTICLE IS NOT A FINDING AGAINST V AS HE IS NOT NAMED IN THE MARTIC INDICTMENT THAT STARTS IN 3 AUGUST 1991 THE DAY HE WAS SENT BACK FROM KNIN NOT GLINA- SEE MAP) TO BELGRADE SERBIA. HE WAS NOT AT GLINA THEN. IT FORGETS VAN LYNDEN TESTIMONY AND MARTIC JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE TELEPHONE INTERCEPTS IN ICTY STANISIC AND SIMATOVIC. IT IS ONLY ONE JUDGE THERE ARE THREE OF THEM AT LEAST ON MARTIC TRIAL AND IT IS NOT IN THE MARTIC APPEAL JUDGMENT. V WAS NOT ABLE TO HAVE IT REMOVED BY LAWYERS BECAUSE V WAS UNIDENTIFIED IN JAIL IN AUSTRALIA.  YOU CANNOT RELY JUST ON WHAT PEOPLE TELL YOU ESPECIALLY THE PRESS BUT YOU HAVE TO USE PROPER PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH SKILLS AND IN V'S CASE ALL THE INFORMATION IS THERE IF YOU KNOW WHERE TO LOOK AND ARE GOOD AT YOUR JOB AND UNBIASED. I AM NOT SERBIAN BUT THERE IS A LOT MORE. B.Slowgrove.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.59 (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Mr Slowgrove, would you write a court submission like this? Please show a little courtesy and write legibly if you want it read. Let's start by identifying one specific error in the Wikipedia article, and how you would like to see it corrected. I'm willing to help you, but the above is a haystack and I'm not sure what type of needle I'm supposed to be searching for. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Athomein/Dragan Vasiljkovic

To Athomein: Would I write a Court submission like that? No because I got paid a considerable amount of money for written submissions. Thinking I would send Wiki the equivalent of what would go in to written submissions means that you do not know what is involved in doing that type of work. I have even more detailed information than what I have given you. I am not writing a Wiki article but want to get rid of it. Put simply if the Extradition Act requires no evidence from Croatia and V is barred by section 19(5) from adducing evidence to contradict the Croatian allegations then there are no brute or physical facts that can be relied upon in the Australian press.There is, however an abundance of proven institutional facts in the ICTY, the U.N. Security Council and to a lesser extent the OSCE, all on the net. Why were these not used to compile the article instead of jaundiced press reports when primary sources were available on the net? The reason is lack of skill and training coupled with laziness. I have told you what some of them say and its devastating if you concentrate and put that information together. As to what is wrong with the Wiki article apart from everything including its age I have already said 1. The criminal record is wrong and the Wiki source for this error is a Croatian nationalist newspaper--pathetic 2 V has not had 13 appeals and all the Australian cases can be tracked on the austlii web site. What is annoying is that the Wiki article has been up for a long time and the only thing removed apart from their nonsense about me is the case where it was to be litigated that V was a Geneva protected person. A trained person would have zeroed in on this and asked what happened to that case?  You will find it never got to final hearing because they took away V's lawyer.This was V's real case and the only case I started for him namely that V has Geneva protection status against everything that has happened to him. Remember I am the laws of war expert. Yet the case disappeared and this was V's real case namely that the Extradition Act does not apply to the laws of war and he has to be prosecuted in Australia under the old section 7 of the Geneva Conventions Act. Do you comprehend how embarrassing it would have been for the Howard govt. if it came out that Ruddock had arrested another person by mistake following the Solon debacle? There's a hint for you. Remember we are dealing with global/universal offences so where the war crimes allegedly took place is irrelevant. It is not like the ordinary criminal law where the territory on which the crime allegedly occurs is important. In war crimes proper you do not send a soldier back for trial to the enemy state for the same obvious reasons that you would not send an Australian Vietnam veteran to Vietnam for war crimes alleged to occur in Vietnam. The Wiki article says V ran for president in Serbia in 1992 so how can his years of military service be from 1991 to 1995? Do you know none of the armed conflicts were on Serbian territory proper? What does the Wiki article believe he was serving in the "war"and running for president of Serbia at the same time?  V must be an electron because he can be in two places at once-- a quantum mechanical soldier! There is one war in Croatia, a different one in Bosnia and another in Kosovo. I would have thought you do not need to be a lawyer to know a person cannot do 10 years in jail without being convicted of a crime. Its backwards and is supposed to be the other way around, isn't it?. I want you to think it all through. In most cases unless there is a risk of flight, or apprehended harm to other people or the person accused, bail is granted.  When people are held in custody prior to trial it is nothing like 10 years jail or even 5 years jail. Is it not supposed to be conviction first and jail second and you get credit for time served prior to conviction? Have you not realized that? If you ran a red light and caused an accident and when charged in the Courts could you say I thought "red" meant "go" not "stop" and when the law is produced showing you that "red" means "stop" do you think you could say "How am I to understand that. I am not a lawyer"?  Do you realize it is now September 2016 and he is still in jail with no real prospect of getting out? I am not going to spend a lot of time doing this I am busy and do not see Wikipedia as a career move. I get paid to write and your getting a freebie. To expect me to spend time totally rebutting a Wiki article that has no proper sources that amount to proof is ridiculous. I know what proof is and I have told you where to find it. If you know how do proper research it will come up alibi. I am not going to spoon feed you. Wikipedia made (or rather copied from the press) its allegations. Now you back them up with proper sources! The press is not a source although what is ironic is that two of V's eye witnesses at times relevant to the Croatian allegations are actually two western media journalists but were prevented by section 19 (5) from giving evidence of V's innocence. I have named one of them already. There are no war crimes in the period V is in the Croatian war by Serbs against non- Serbs if you look at the ICTY indictment pattern. There are no pre-war war crimes. The law does not treat war as inevitable. I was a barrister and law lecturer for well over two decades and I have never seen the press get any Court case right and they are usually regarded as a standard joke by all competent legal practitioners at the time I practiced. The idea that they will get something right that requires sophisticated specialist legal skills that most Australian lawyers these days do not have is ridiculous. It is not unusual that the press will get victim and perpetrator mixed up and then double victimize the innocent person again. Many Australians journalists do no work, are on the booze and then trot out sensationalized garbage at the last minute to meet a deadline. I have seen this in other cases but V is the absolute ultimate example of double and even triple victimization. See if V is not guilty it spoils the story,they do not have a war criminal to write about. Do you get it? Can you imagine the consequences now if the truth comes out? I can understand attitudes although mistaken taken about V 9 years ago but how can you still hold that position in late 2016 after he has done 10 years jail without trial? How blind do you have to be to know something very strange is up? I waited all this time so the whole thing would become obviously ridiculous and wrong but Australians once they put those blinders on there is no way to get them off especially if you put them to work, I bet you also believe Australia is a free country even though anyone can be put in jail indefinitely without evidence and barred from proving their innocence to get out? I have so much more it is unbelievable and you cannot take in what I have given you so far yet you want work the equivalent of written submissions? Written submissions by the way are not evidence either but may comment on evidence. Go over what I have said already and concentrate. I have much more but V's case is STILL going on isn't it? and without a conviction or trial, to date anyway?  The problem in V's case is the evidence in his favor is so large people cannot take it all in after 10 years of this. B. Slowgrove  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.196 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Mr Slowgrove, you're not the only lawyer here; for what's it worth I have worked on extradition cases before too, which is why I took an interest in this article after seeing your posts. Of course I do not expect communication here to be the same level of quality that is used in court submissions, but is the use of paragraphs too much to ask for?
If your only purpose here is to "get rid" of the article, well I can pretty much assure you that will not happen. The coverage surrounding Vasiljkovic makes him notable enough for an article. So on that basis, I will extend an offer one last time. Are there specific inaccuracies that you would like to see fixed? Please bear in mind that we are all volunteers here, so brevity and keeping it on point would be appreciated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
1. Athomein If you are lawyer working on extraditions and understand extradition law you should realize that the Australian Extradition Act is Not extradition and that under the Australian Constitution it is for the Courts not the Parliament to say what extradition is and the operative words under the Australian Constitution is "law with respect to external affairs" not "extradition". Extradition is about treaty OBLIGATIONS to surrender persons for criminal offences and there is no treaty obligation to surrender Vasiljkovic to Croatia. Surrender of persons outside of treaty are not sourced in extradition law but in the presumption of liberty of state action on the international plane under international law. In other words Australia could surrender me to another state for a new jet fighter not criminal offences and international law would not intervene and that is not"extradition". You need to show mistreatment of a foreign national under the law of diplomatic protection. You should know all this but read on.

\ 2. If your experience in "extradition"law is working under the Australian Extradition Act then you are not an extradition lawyer. I designed the extradition aspect of the international law course for the Supreme Court admission to practice exams and I did not know this bizarre monstrosity lay unnoticed in Australian law until I got the brief in V.The course I taught dealt with "extradition" under international law and I assumed Australia had adopted a system consistent with this and the Constitution. Bad assumption. I will still take the risk you might know something and have given you those paragraphs you so desire and maybe later an explanation as to why I did not use paragraphs. It might be useful to save space if you ask precise questions about anything connected to V but to say you can write inaccurate rubbish about someone because he is a "notable person" does not make sense, does it? Notable for what? Read on. Let's see what is at the bottom of it if you do understand "extradition" and have the skills for the ride and the courage for the inevitable conclusion or are you just making it up that you are an extradition lawyer? Do you actually run "extradition"cases yourself, like me, appear in High Court etc.? If you know and understand extradition law you will understand exactly what I say in the next numbered paragraphs. After all it is you that have opened it up, declared your hand but not your name unlike me. Let's try some trust Athomein. 

3. All surrenders (extradition or not) for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions are governed by the standard terms in article 129 G III and 146 G IV that require indictment on prima facie evidence from Croatia for multiple good reasons. Since Part II of the EA does not require this for V the 1949 Geneva Conventions will therefore not treat V's confinement and transfer as either an extradition or a "hand over" and the Geneva obligation would therefore fall on Australia to prosecute on indictment on prima facie evidence with section 80 of the Constitution requiring a jury trial after a committal hearing. I note you cannot legislate out of Geneva and Australia does not do so since Geneva protects its troops abroad. 

4 Let's start extradition lawyer: The section 5 definition of "extradition treaty" in the E.A includes art.129 G III and 146 G IV. Read it. It picks up not just on bilateral treaties but includes "prosecute or extradite" provisions in multilateral crime treaties like Geneva. Go now to the section 5 definition of "extradition country" in the E.A. that says an "extradition country"is declared as such by the regulations and note a definition section does not create the regulations and the regulations cannot create themselves. This is the point they all miss and in which I succeeded on twice in interlocutory proceedings in the High Court that never made final hearing. What you must do then is go to the E.A. enabling provisions as to how the "extradition countries" are prescribed by the regulations and in regard to Croatia this is section 55 with the all important section 11 (1) (b) of the E.A. The last clause of section 11 (1)(b) that says ", other than..."etc. will exclude the international laws of war Yugoslavia or otherwise and you know from your precious press that is what they want him for. I have the Croatian warrant and request here on this computer but a quick way to verify I am not a liar is to do a search for the Croatian Amnesty Act(1996) where art.1 creates an amnesty for ordinary crimes having a nexus to the Croatian war and art.3 then exempts, inter alia, the international laws of war. You should already know a state cannot amnesty, pardon, immunize or render time- barred Nuremberg ius in bello universal war crimes. Another way to confirm I am truthful about all the Croatian allegations being Geneva "ius in bello" against V and having no ordinary criminal law element is to note that Croatia was not recognized by the E.U. and Australia until 15/16 January 1992.Thus you cannot have the ordinary criminal law of Croatia applicable to V in June/July 1991 because it would be retroactive and you cannot have retroactive criminal law prosecutions under international law including extraditions( fundamental but try e.g. Pinochet No.2 in the House of Lords). Note also Croatia did not sign Geneva until May 1992. However Croatia does not have to exist at the relevant time to prosecute under Geneva ius in bello (Eichmann's case- Israel prosecuted Eichmann even though it did not exist in WW II when Eichmann committed his universal crimes). So although you do not have the Croatian warrant and request as I do you can deduce that all crimes alleged against V are universal Geneva "ius in bello".

5.Now if the wording of section 11 (1) (b) is too much of a mouthful there are various other short cuts to show ius in bello Geneva is excluded from the definition of "extradition country" in section 5 of the E.A. First the E.A. has no provision on competing requests by prescribed extradition countries. Given that the allegations against V are universal ius in bello Geneva war crimes there would be nothing to stop another extradition country such as Slovenia issuing a warrant and request for V for the same alleged war crimes as Croatia and seeking V's transfer to Slovenia that was recognized by the E.U and Australia at the same time as Croatia. Slovenia was declared an "extradition country "under the E.A at the same time as Croatia and in the same way. Are there to be two parallel extradition hearings, reviews and appeals one by Croatia and the other by Slovenia with V in the dock in both before it gets to the Minister to decide? Of course not. Nothing in the E.A allows you to join them together.The magistrate does not decide which sovereign state wins over another one. Do you follow me?  Then what is the provision in the E.A that says what "extradition country" has priority and can bring the proceedings under Part II of the E.A and have V arrested.There is none. Then how do you work it out? The answer is you cannot under the E.A have two extradition countries at the same time. One will be excluded in the particular case because of the alleged facts of the crimes. To work this out you have to apply the international criminal law jurisdictions because under the external affairs power the federal parliament must accept the foreign state/country as it actually exists under international law to legislate and cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps by re-modelling a foreign state or country by its own local federal legislation. So using international criminal jurisdiction what is the one relevant to V to see what is the real "extradition country" for Part II of the E.A. ? The relevant criminal jurisdiction under international law is clearly universal. It has to be because Croatia was not recognized until mid January 1992. This means all states have jurisdiction to try V and does not solve the problem. So ius in bello universal war crimes anywhere must be excluded from the definition of "extradition country" in section 5 of the E.A. because it cannot apply to the exercise of universal jurisdiction as all the extradition countries under the E.A. could use Part II for the same crimes against the same person. Australia prosecutes and does not "extradite" to live up to its Geneva obligations and this has been government policy since WW II. I may tell you why in another post if you do not say something silly back. They are excluded under section 11 (1) (b) that you also read with section 15 A of the Acts Interpretation Act and the external affairs power in placitum 51 (xxix) of the Constitution? Got it?

6.I will give you an even quicker way to see the E.A. exclusion. If you look at art.129 Geneva III and 146 Geneva IV the High Contracting Party can hand over for grave breaches of Geneva to the other High Contracting Party if it is "for trial" on "proof of a prima facie case". "No evidence" extradition under the Australian Extradition Act is only for the "conduct constituting the offence"see e.g section 19(5). However when art.129 G III and 146 G IV speak of a prima facie case those articles are not just talking about proof of the the conduct defined in art.130 G III and 147 G IV as a grave breach. They also require prima facie evidence of the jurisdictional prerequisites for Geneva grave breaches and the rest of the ius in bello to operate. This means you have to provide prima facie evidence of an armed conflict and further in the case of grave breaches you have to provide prima facie evidence that the proven armed conflict comes within common article 2 of Geneva (an I.A.C.). There is more. You need prima facie evidence of the precise Geneva articles that you allege have been gravely breached. You just cannot prove that a soldier engaged in deliberate killing in a war and say it is a Geneva grave breach because that is their job. The Extradition Act totally omits proof of these necessary prerequisites and is only concerned with no evidence of "conduct constituting the offence". Do you think V started an entire armed conflict solely on his own? Another quick exclusion is to note Geneva ius in bello war crimes have command responsibility both direct and indirect so how do you fit "conduct constituting the offence" into command responsibility especially indirect. Over 90% of the unpleaded Croatian allegations against V are those of command responsibility and not "conduct" by V. Thus it must all be excluded from the E.A. If you are trained you should have not gotten lost yet.

7.The E.A is on the net although it has been amended since 2006 that should not matter. Wade through to the last clause of section 11(1) (b) and do not forget the comma before "other than..."if you look it up-- which I doubt. Prima facie evidence of armed conflict is essential because you are dealing with a jurisdiction that puts official capacity into suspension. Do you think you can arrest and jail foreign sovereign officials on bare unpleaded allegations of war crimes. Most war criminals are state officials often powerful ones including defense ministers, foreign ministers, ministers of the interior and armed forces, even heads of state. V is a Serbian military commander so he is a public official. You cannot suspend his office without prima facie evidence. But he is Serb. 

8. You should also note that the section 5 E.A definition of "treaty" and "extradition treaty"in the E.A. are extended municipal law definitions and not an international law definition. This means it will also pick up on articles 19 and 29 of the ICTY Statute that also require indictment on prima facie evidence for the ius in bello war crimes in articles 2 and 3 of the ICTY Statute. The ICTY is a surrender and prosecute Court because Yugoslav war criminals do not reside in Holland.They have to be transferred in from national jurisdictions to be tried so you need indictment on prima facie evidence. So again there is no "extradition country" within section 5 of the E.A. because Geneva ius in bello in Yugoslavia is also excluded by section 11(1)(b) for Croatia to make application to arrest V. You will see this argument succeed before a single High Court judge on 15 February 2006 with me as V's counsel. Geneva was not raised at that time because V had a privilege against self incrimination from prosecution in Australia and had not been in jail very long. I did not know then he was innocent but only had an educated hunch. Both Geneva and the ICTY are then raised again successfully before the same High Court judge by my solicitor Mr. Dennis on 15 November 2006. I was not there because the Commonwealth put on their application to dismiss V's habeas corpus while I was in Holland on V's behalf. I anticipated the Commonwealth's move and drafted V's documents before I left. It included an advice exhibited to Mr. Dennis's affidavit saying what I have I told you above as well as two reports from high profile international lawyers saying you needed prima facie evidence under international law to "extradite" V for Geneva war crimes. I am not alone they just pretend I am alone. Both were interlocutory proceedings and V won if you understand High Court practice and procedure which is an art for real advocates. What ever happened to the final hearing of that winning case? Remember interlocutory outcomes give you an idea of who will win the case if further evidence is not filed before the final hearing that would impact on the result. However there is no evidence required in V's case under the E.A and he cannot bring evidence to contradict Croatia. This is a pretty good indication to say V would have won. What happened to that final hearing?

9.What does it all amount to? V has been imprisoned for 10 years under a statute that has nothing to do with him. In fact not only is no evidence produced in all that time there is no evidence that there was ever any war at any time anywhere in Yugoslavia. What are you going to tell me that just like V it is NOTABLE because a war in Bosnia not Croatia was on television after "The Simpsons"and the Serbs were NOTABLY the "baddies". As I quoted before "You want the truth. You can't handle the truth". I have much better up my sleeve but I have given you enough to work it out. Getting scared of the real answer yet! When I was in V's case in the federal court the Comm. govt had ten lawyers there and reduced it to two after they got rid of me. 

10..As to why I did not use paragraphs in my Talk posts I have not posted anything on the net before and was worried that there was a cut off word limit. Secondly it is usual (is it not? )that those who make allegations against others have to prove what they say and even further if the allegations are criminal you usually do not rely on your client's denial of guilt as the yardstick for innocence? So I have taken upon myself the Herculean task to prove circumstantially from the ICTY that V not only has an airtight alibi it is an alibi that he could not know about or tell me about. In fact much of the alibi evidence that comes from the ICTY came into existence when V was in jail in Australia. I undertook this Herculean task of proving innocence during a large war because lay people usually want to know if they DID IT. Athomein says that he/she/TG is not a lay person. Well V didn't do it and I can show a lot more on this. As I said people will now probably believe V is an electron, a quantum mechanical soldier that can be in two places at once. I am not going to post a c.v but do you know what is writing back to you? I run "extradition"cases not watch them. I ran his for 2 weeks in a kangaroo court. The Full Federal Court said I won having less than 10% of the material I tendered at the "extradition"hearing before them. The evidence is incredible including that about Croatian intelligence (yes there are spooks in it as well-real nasty ones too) but the evidence does not point to Vasiljkovic. This is definitely for adults if you are up to it. Tell me what direction am I heading?

11.Ten years jail without trial or conviction, serving your entire sentence without proof there is even a war, and all of it under a statute that has nothing to do with you. Well I will know in a split second if you know anything about extradition law if you say anything back, won't I now? . Remember the starting point: states have no obligation to prosecute or extradite under customary international law. You need a treaty supporting the extradition and there is none in V's case. As to the source of the Australian "Extradition" Act if you are very good at your job you might try The Prosecutor (Trimbole) v The Governor of Mountjoy Prison in the Irish Reports. If you had to pay a proper professional fee for what I have said above you would gulp it all down agreeing with everything in the above PARAGRAPHS but I haven't so I bet you want to argue. B. Slowgrove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.211 (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr Slowgrove, thank you for the very detailed explanation above. I apologize for sounding condescending before, but the large chunks of text you have written previously were very difficult to read. Your explanation of the problems with the Extradition Act was very interesting. I've had a look at the relevant sections of the Act and also read all of the 2006 High Court transcripts. I do not want to mislead you. It is true I have worked on a small number of extradition cases before, but none involving war crimes or the level of complexity in this case. So I am not going to pretend to know as much as you on this topic. I mention my small amount of experience just to show that I am familiar with the extradition process and am not a complete lay person. I have some specific questions which I would like to ask for my own curiosity, but it is not appropriate to do so here.
But even if I defer to your opinion that the extradition was invalid and should not have happened, how does that affect the Wikipedia article? Having read the article again, I can see the chronology jumps about all over the place and some of the dates may be wrong. "13 appeals" is a mischaracterization of the news source which states there were 13 separate matters. The first three sections need some attention, because there appears to be a mixture of fact and allegation in there and it seems to rely too much on evidence from Milosevic's trial.
The rest of the article, from the "Allegation" section onwards, appears to be a fair summary of what has happened over the last ten years. What happened in Australia may have been an injustice, but is Wikipedia's description of it incorrect in any way?
On the point of notability of the subject, I think you would agree that, after ten years of coverage and the unenviable title of "first Australian extradited for war crimes" (as he was described by The Australian today; his trial in Croatia started yesterday), he is certainly "notable" for the purpose of Wikipedia's policies. In case you are not familiar with them, the general notability guideline is a good starting point.
I appreciate you have invested a lot of time and energy into this case. I don't want to waste your time any further, but if there are inaccuracies in the article, particularly regarding the proceedings in Australia, then I would like to hear your thoughts so that they can be fixed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Athomein/Dragan Vasiljkovic.

Athomein: The errors in the Wiki article as I have said before are (1) V does not have a criminal record for  robbery or "forcing woman into prostitution" (2) His years are service are in the Krajina army only and they are from April 1991 to 3 August 1991 and from January 1993 to December 1994. The Wiki caption about V's years of service is wrong. This is important because the ICTY in Martic says the Croatian war did not begin until Kijevo on 26 August 1991 and all ICTY indictments against Serbs for war crimes are from 26 August 1991 until July 1992 at least 3 weeks after V was politically banished because of, inter alia, his western media contacts e.g Van Lynden at Glina in late July 1991. The only other Serb war crime against non-Serbs is the firing of the Orca rockets into Zagreb in May 1995 by Martic. In fact no Serb from Serbia has yet to be convicted by the ICTY over the Krajina theater of the Croatian war. They are all Krajina Serbs and V is a Serb from Serbia.

(3) He has not had 13 appeals so the Wiki article is a mile wrong. To be precise V has had 2 appeals and one special leave application. One of the appeals was successful and V was released. V has had 3 original proceedings. The Commonwealth and Croatia has had one appeal and a cross appeal and one original proceeding. In the defamation case V had one original proceeding, one appeal and a special leave application. (4) the Wiki article seems to assume that the defamation proceedings were about the same "war crimes" allegations as Croatia in the "extradition". They are not. This falsity is promoted by "The Australian" claiming unbelievably in editorials that it ran a "war crimes" prosecution and convicted V. V's defamation case to get damages against The Australian was ruined on causation by his subsequent arrest by Croatia and Australian police on totally different Croatian issues under the E.A. on 19 January 2006. The defamation concerned allegations primarily cited in Bosnia and Serbia where V was never a military commander and has never been prosecuted by either the Bosnian government or the Serbian government. (5) V took all 5 extradition objections not just "no fair trial" in Croatia. In particular V claimed the Croatian allegations were political offences relying upon the High Court in R v Wilson: ex parte the Witness of T where the H.C held a West German prosecution of a German for WW II war crimes was not a political offence it would have to be e.g. a German prosecution of a Russian for WW II war crimes to be a political offence. This case is right on authority for V so it was simply ignored as usual. It would mean that even if Croatia had an indictment on prima facie evidence it would still not get V. The "13 appeals propaganda" is sourced in the Commonwealth that with Croatia put V in jail and they then try to distract attention from the time V has spent in jail by implying it is V's fault by litigating to get out of jail. If you believe that you would believe anything. If V only brought "delaying" proceedings to stay in Australia that would be an abuse of process and the Commonwealth and Croatia could have had his case automatically struck out. Did they do that? No.

Wikipedia has a policy against using tabloid newspaper reports and you cannot get more "tabloid" than a Murdoch newspaper such as "The Australian" especially when sued for defamation and where it operates in an oligopolistic media economy like Australia. This surely qualifies "notability" as a Wiki criteria. In using any media as a source the proper approach is to divide the media piece up between information and persuasion. You then isolate the information and ask is it obviously correct, or admitted, or not disputed, or corroborated by proper sources or does it have other circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness? Applying this to V you find that (a) Croatia was an enemy state in an armed conflict (b) V was a soldier that fought against Croatia under flag and in uniform in that armed conflict (c) V has been imprisoned by Croatia and the Australian state for 10 years without charge (d) the imprisonment is based solely on war crime allegations against the soldier by the enemy. On this information any objective journalist would write a piece critical of the Commonwealth and ask what has happened to Australian democracy? Have any journalists from The Australian done this? See how easily people are brain washed by the press and/or governments. The Wiki article is just an extension of the tabloid press and overall its theme is one of lurid and ethnocentric if not racist prurient appeal. It is just lucky that the Wiki article is the last of V's ongoing problems. 

I note your attitude to me may have now softened as you might have picked up some of the law in my last post. V had a fourth original proceeding that never got to final hearing. He won on an interlocutory basis before a High Court judge on 15 February and 15 November 2006 with me. A single High Court judge will not make any remarks on the merits of the case because that judge will not be able to sit on the case if it gets to the Full Court. In fact the H.C judge says this in one of those transcripts. You have to look at what the H.C judge does and V gets what he wants in both those cases. You have to know what was before that High Court single judge and it was the law I gave you in my last post. There is a simple way to pick this up.

Geneva and the laws of war require an indictment supported by prima facie evidence where the Extradition Act does not. The Commonwealth says Geneva is irrelevant to the Extradition Act. Therefore it follows that the Extradition Act is irrelevant to Geneva and the laws of war. It is Croatia that says it is Geneva. You can now get this from the press but I have the Croatian allegations and they are all Geneva. Therefore the Croatian allegations are irrelevant to the Extradition Act and V wins. The Croatian request is not an "extradition request" within section 5 of the E.A because it is not a request from an "extradition country"(See my last post).The 1949 Geneva Conventions go under the Geneva Conventions Act not the Extradition Act and that means prosecution in Australia by indictment on prima facie evidence with jury trial after a committal. Extradition is where a local crime is committed under one system of law and the alleged perpetrator is now under a different system of law. That is not true of Geneva war crimes because they are universal and every state in the world is part of the same universal system so you try where the offender is found. There is no extradition. 

Another way to easily cross check this is to do a Google search on Australia's Declaration on signing the Rome Statute. That declaration requires stringent conditions to be met before Australia will surrender a person to the International Criminal Court for its universal crimes including ius in bello Geneva war crimes. Are you telling me that Australia would place all these conditions on the ICC but will hand over for the same genus of war crimes a soldier to the enemy without evidence and bar them proving their innocence to get out? Big difference when an expert does V's case, isn't it?  

What is notable is not that this is Australia's first war crimes extradition but that it took Australia until 2015 to extradite someone for alleged war crimes. I could do the political and legal history of Australia regarding the laws of war since Nuremberg in WW II but there is not enough space. It suffices to say that to extradite for ius in bello war crimes Australia must legislate to do it and the Extradition Act does not do that. I will go further and say if V was guilty (which he is not) legally V was in the right place because unless there is a proper request from the ICTY for surrender Australia is both a prosecution and extradition legal haven for the universal crimes committed in the Krajina theater of the Croatian war. See if you can figure out why? Hint: There are no article 2 ICTY grave breaches convictions in the Krajina theater of the Croatian war. You do not extradite for the laws of war because someone might ask for your Defense Minister. You got it now. Why the Rome Statute declaration?  Its Australian govt policy. It has been Australia govt. policy since WW II. with bi-partisan political support.The govt. idiots forgot V was caught by it.

Lastly it does not take a lot of time for me to do this. You would be hard pressed to find anyone in the common law world that has taught as many law subjects to as many students for the same length of time as I have. I have a lot more but enough bombshells I will keep the rest up my sleeve .The Wiki article is just a minor contributor to blatant state repression that has been going on in this country for at least 10 years. This is called the Wikipedia "Talk" page on Dragan Vasiljkovic so I do not see why it is inappropriate to ask questions on that topic. B.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.67 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Athomein/Dragan Vsiljkovic

Athomein have you read the unsigned criticisms above going back as far as 2007 of another person who like me wanted the Wiki article deleted. The person who wrote those criticism I hope is not the person who wrote the Wiki article. The critical comments above against the 2007 Wiki deletion defy the imagination for bigoted unbalanced thought processes and are ridiculous. If someone has been put in jail without evidence or charge as long as V then over 1 year (now 10 years) it is clearly a gross injustice and totally undemocratic. I do not know what " use neutral tone" means in this context unless you could write in Swiss and there is no Swiss language only German, French and Italian. To say that the relevant law for V in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom is "not verifiable" is the stupid thing I have read this week. It is verifiable. It is on the net and you can verify it simply by using the machine you are on through Google searches. To say that comparing V to David Hicks is "stupid" is itself stupid because V has been treated infinitely more unfairly than David Hicks. Hicks had no flag or uniform, was charged with ordinary crimes having a nexus to war and the Bush Military Commission gave Hicks a much higher standard of procedural justice than V who has had none and is still in jail. Despite this Hicks was released because the standard of justice given to Hicks by the Bush Military Commission was still too low for Geneva general standards in common article 3.1(d) even though the crimes were municipal crimes having a nexus to a non-international armed conflict with terrorists out of uniform and no flag and not ius in bello war crimes in an international armed conflict like V. ( see amicus curiae appearance for Hicks in U.S Supreme Court in the majority decision in the case of Hamden v Rumsfeld). This is a classic example of the type of ignorance that has led to the illegal persecution of V which is now a massive scandal. Most of those obvious criticisms made by the person who wanted the Wiki article deleted in 2007 are easily verifiable by just using the machine we are on and they should have been heeded back in 2007. This is obvious now in late 2016.

The above person concerned has never heard of the presumption of innocence especially where no charge or evidence has been produced against V. Instead V was charged 10 years later after he had served his sentence but perhaps in saying that I do not have a neutral tone because it is such a obvious damning truth. Above you are dealing with a clear case of someone who thinks "where there is smoke there is fire" but has the gall to accuse  someone else of expressing a POV that is obviously correct on all the known provable facts. These kinds of people are common and always dangerous. What is perverse is that "where there is smoke there is fire"is correct but alas more often "the fire" is in the person making the allegation and "the smoke" is on the poor victim that has suffered under the false allegation. If this person is the one responsible for the Wiki article you are dealing with someone of low intellect and a definite fascist mid set. This is a clear example of the down side of universal education-- writing out nonsense and ignorance with such enormous arrogance and shallow certainty and above all with a total absence of any talent or training.

There is one fundamental mistake that all untrained people make about V's case. When the press speaks of "war crimes extraditions" by other countries those extraditions are invariably municipal crimes having a nexus to war called "domestic war crimes". V's case is about war crimes proper or the "ius in bello".  Most (and I mean most and even nearly all) countries do not extradite at all for purely ius in bello war crimes or war crimes proper and this includes Croatia and Australia that does not extradite generally for the crimes Croatia has alleged without proof or charge against V. The difference is that municipal crimes including "domestic war crimes"are underwritten by the sovereignty of the state that created them. The ius in bello or war crimes proper are created by the international legal system itself and not the sovereignty of any individual state. Those war crimes proper are not founded in individual state sovereignty but are underwritten by the Nuremberg principle.

The Nuremberg principle has two limbs (1) states are not criminally responsible under international law only individuals are and (2) it is irrelevant what capacity the individual is acting under municipal law that individual is still criminally responsible under international law for ius in bello war crimes. All the Croatian allegations against V are underwritten by the Nuremberg principle. This is why most states do not extradite because over 80% of those who commit ius in bello or war crimes proper are municipal state officials. Therefore another state could demand that you extradite your head of state or prime minister or defense minister etc. if the state legislated to allow extradition for Geneva. Therefore states live up to their Geneva obligations by prosecuting where the offender is found and do not extradite at all to other states ( see e.g art 129 G III and  art. 146 G IV). Australia and Croatia are identical in this respect. Neither extradites for the "war crimes"alleged against V but prosecute where the offender is on their respective territories even if the alleged ius in bello war crimes are said to have happened abroad. It is where the offender is not where the ius in bello war crime occurred that is relevant. States world wide predominantly only adopt Nuremberg crimes including ius in bello war crimes for prosecution not extradition no matter where the alleged crime occurred and Geneva allows states to do this. States do this to protect their own civilian and military officials from prosecution by foreign states where their own municipal law is no defense to the ius in bello war crimes that must always proceed by indictment on prima facie evidence.

Delete the Wiki article. You could start a new updated Wiki article based on the fact that V has spent over 10 years in jail before trial and without conviction.I can give you all the information if you wish to get the correct word out to Wiki readers. B.S.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.165 (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Where are the Administrators looking after this page?? These long diatribes are directly against TP rules/guidelines - please 'hat' the above and patrol this talk page more rigorously. Thank you. 50.111.54.136 (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dragan Vasiljković. 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) 23:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dragan Vasiljković. 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) 16:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dragan Vasiljković. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory information?

Information from article, "He commanded special units known as Red Berets (not to be confused with the Special Operations Unit (JSO) founded in Serbia in 1996) or Knindže after the Krajina's capital of Knin and ninja fighters." Source for this information is personal testimony from court ie court transcript.[8] @Peacemaker67: I am interested whether the personal or in general testimony from some court is RS? I have this information "he taught military skills to a volunteer unit called "the Knindže", source [1] Otherwise we have this information in the introductory part "was the commander of a Croatian Serb paramilitary unit called the Knindže". Mikola22 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Generally I take the view that only court findings are reliable, not witness statements or testimony, unless specifically mentioned in the summation or finding. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Maria Todorova; (2004) Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory p. 256; NYU Press, ISBN 0814782795
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragan_Vasiljković/Archive_1&oldid=1248776992"