Talk:Dragan Vasiljković: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:17, 1 October 2024 editSadko (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers81,682 edits OneClickArchived "Athomein/Dragan Vasiljkovic" to Talk:Dragan Vasiljković/Archive 1 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:17, 1 October 2024 edit undoSadko (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers81,682 edits OneClickArchived "Athomein/Dragan Vasiljkovic." to Talk:Dragan Vasiljković/Archive 1 Next edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:
	{{WikiProject Military history\|Biography=y\|Post-Cold-War=y\|class=C\|b1=no\|b2=yes\|b3=yes\|b4=yes\|b5=yes}}		{{WikiProject Military history\|Biography=y\|Post-Cold-War=y\|class=C\|b1=no\|b2=yes\|b3=yes\|b4=yes\|b5=yes}}
	}}		}}

	== 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.

	Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages "Talk" page on Dragan Vasiljkovic so I do not see why it is inappropriate to ask questions on that topic. B.S. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Athomein/Dragan Vsiljkovic ==		== Athomein/Dragan Vsiljkovic ==

Revision as of 12:17, 1 October 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Crime Low‑importance

	Australia portal Dragan Vasiljković is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Serbia: Belgrade

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Belgrade task force (marked as -importance).

Military history: Biography / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Post-Cold War task force

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)

External links modified

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)

External links modified

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}}).

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)

External links modified

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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fightdemback.org/2005/09/08/cetniks-on-the-golf-course
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123064320/http://www.javno.com/en-world/captain-dragans-victims-testify-of-war-crimes_254545 to http://www.javno.com/en-world/captain-dragans-victims-testify-of-war-crimes_254545
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20894215-2,00.html?from=public_rss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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. @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 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

Maria Todorova; (2004) Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory p. 256; NYU Press, ISBN 0814782795

Categories: