Psychological Operations and Information Warfare Against Croatia and Croats – Part IV

Click on Banner image to enlarge

Click on Banner image to enlarge

 

Guest Post
By Ante Horvat

Foreign Intelligence Agencies, Capabilities, and Croatia

The revelations last year by Edward Snowden – and the brave reporting by Glenn Greenwald and his colleagues at The Intercept, as well as in quality independent blogs such as Washingtonsblog.com – shine a bright light on just how massive, invasive, many times in most countries, blatantly unconstitutional, and illegal surveillance has become in the world today with borderline psychotic government obsessions to control internet discourse on politics and geopolitics.

Information management is power, as management equates to control.

While the internet was not what it is today in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, signals intelligence was a key component of intelligence for all states – the pervasiveness of Internet usage has only exponentially increased its usefulness to further these goals.

Yugoslavia, which broke with Stalin earning it a false reputation as some moderate Communist regime and not a police state, due to Cold War realities managed to receive many perks.

One of those is UDBa crimes not being touched with a ten foot pole by Western governments unless the murderers were too sloppy.

Or, as was the case with the Croatian Six, a Western intelligence agency and national police would collude with UDBa to frame law-abiding citizens of Croatian descent for trumped up, UDBa planned and planted “terrorism” charges. In the case of Chicago’s Bozic family, UDBa’s attempted murder of Mrs. Bozic after she told her husband’s would be UDBa assassins that came knocking on her home door that he had left early for work that day, the Cold War perks for Yugoslavia led to a total gag on the investigation after 24 hours with no valid explanation, no further investigation, nor justice, to date.

Yet, even with the repressive domestic police state apparatus, and an aggressive foreign intelligence apparatus targeting dissenters in the West for murder, Yugoslavia was of many nations to be sold the intelligence and law enforcement Google before Google – PROMIS software.

The controversial software – which tracked cases in legal systems, but also intelligence operatives, assets, intelligence targets, and built matrices of relationships between everything in the system if there was any connection – was sold by the US to over 80 nations in the 1980s after being stolen from Inslaw Inc..

It is known that the sold pirated versions – which made it to over 80 countries – had exploits to allow for information extraction.

Which means that the U.S. – and its Five Eyes allies – potentially almost certainly had back door access to all of the not just judicial files, but also intelligence agencies’ files which in the case of Yugoslavia and other nations in the Eastern Bloc, including repressive secret police agent lists, informants and snitches, and the names and dossiers of all civilians under surveillance, which in Croatia’s case, was one third of its population.

This opens several questions.

The first is that with the fall of Tito’s Yugoslavia, why haven’t Western governments, other than Germany, aggressively called for UDBa operatives who engaged in state sponsored terrorism, to be held accountable, as well as for insisting that European states that were under Communism, to push through vigorous lustration laws such as in Germany upon reunification and Poland after it regained true independence?

The second is why, after 1990, this information which the U.S. and more than likely other Five Eyes have on the inner-workings, employee lists, informant and snitch lists, and innocent victims’ dossier lists, have not been shared with Croatia’s (or other Central, Eastern and South Eastern) European post-Communist states?

Could it be that all of those former regime elements, who were loyal to Yugoslavia and their own power within it and who were also trained operatives, were recruited by foreign governments for subversive activities?

All signs point to yes.

 

 

____________

About the author: Ante Horvat was born in the USA in 1970′s. He has recently moved to live permanently in Croatia and although spending most of his life in the USA he had made several temporary residence visits to Croatia during that time. His education and professional development in history and international relations also spans across the two continents. He is an active observer of and participant in the development of democracy in Croatia since the early 1990’s and its correlation with the developed Western democracies.

 

Related Posts:
http://inavukic.com/2014/04/05/psychological-operations-and-information-warfare-against-croatia-and-croats-part-iii/

http://inavukic.com/2014/04/02/psychological-operations-and-information-warfare-against-croatia-and-croats-part-ii/

http://inavukic.com/2014/03/30/psychological-operations-and-information-warfare-against-croatia-and-croats-part-i/

Psychological Operations And Information Warfare Against Croatia And Croats – Part III

Click on Banner image to enlarge

Click on Banner image to enlarge

Guest Post
By Ante Horvat

 

Wartime Foreign Information Warfare against Croatia, Croats and the Truth

With President Dr. Franjo Tudjman’s and HDZ’s political victory in 1990, which came after years of greater Serbian political agitation, legal abuses, ransacking of the Yugoslav Federal treasury, clandestine arming of a large swathe of Croatian Serbs, “meetings of truth,” and “spontaneous happenings of the endangered Serbian people” where stages, microphones, amplifiers and TV crews were on site before the “spontaneous happening,” it goes without saying that purges were to take place in intelligence and the police and other government sectors – where people were appointed much of the time based on Communist party loyalty and membership and not qualifications – and they did (it is important to note that more people were purged from the civil service, police and military after 2000 than in 1990 and immediately after – the bulk of those purged were Croatian Communists, not Serbs).

Tudjman would have been not just inept, but insane, if he would have allowed people who either openly supported Milosevic’s policies actively, or those, specifically in the intelligence services, who openly or tacitly supported Milosevic and or did nothing to prevent or expose the illegal arming of Croatian Serbs by Belgrade, to keep their posts. Yet the lie about Serbs being fired simply for being Serbs prevailed during the war, and was yet again repeated at the ICTY despite more Croats being fired from the government and security apparatus than Serbs.

Due to Tudjman’s and Croatia’s impossible international and domestic situation in the face of Serbian diplomatic and military supremacy, Serbia’s continual overt threats of violence to achieve its goals of “uniting Serbdom,” and Tudjman’s agenda of burying the WWII created Red-Black divide, it would have been unwise to crack down on the former regime members. Tudjman correctly chose to drive a wedge between them to use the professional abilities of those who switched to the Croatian side to help the cause for democratic state-building and deal with the criminals among them at a later date while leaving those who awaited the Yugoslav People’s Army “liberators” to take Zagreb, stare at the wall and wait for Godot with a red-star cap, forever.

There were larger priorities at hand and a statesman must choose his battles carefully, based on timing. Those left waiting for a red-star capped Godot undoubtedly had people knocking on their doors – people from foreign governments and their respective intelligence agencies.

Those same foreign governments were, to help legitimize their deliberate misrepresentations and bad, self-compromising and hypocritical policies, simultaneously were pumping money into a two pronged NGO strategy – one to promote an entirely parallel reality via NGOs they formed or funded to help form offshoots, the second, to allow journalists, diplomats and politicians to quote that parallel reality put forth by said NGOs and their subsidy recipients as if it was truth to influence or change domestic and international political opinion, and political outcomes.

Spearheading the charge of NGOs in Croatia during the 1990s was the Open Society Institute (OSI), owned by self-described “humanist” and known currency speculator and billionaire extraordinaire George Soros.

According to the October 1, 1996 Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) investigative report compiled by F. William Enghdal, Mark Burdman, Elisabeth Hellenbroich, Paolo Raimondi, and Scott Thompson:

Soros is friends with former Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, the former U.S. ambassador to Belgrade and the patron of Serbian Communist leader Slobodan Milosevic. Eagleburger is a past president of Kissinger Associates, on whose board sits Lord Carrington, whose Balkan mediations supported Serbian aggression into Croatia and Bosnia.
Today, Soros has established his Foundation centers in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and a Soros Yugoslavia Foundation in Belgrade, Serbia. In Croatia, he has tried to use his foundation monies to woo influential journalists or to slander opponents of his shock therapy, by labeling them variously “anti-Semitic” or “neo-Nazi.” The head of Soros’s Open Society Fund—Croatia, Prof. Zarko Puhovski (iiiiiivv), is a man who has reportedly made a recent dramatic conversion from orthodox Marxism to Soros’s radical free market. Only seven years ago, according to one of his former students, as professor of philosophy at the University of Zagreb, Puhovski attacked students trying to articulate a critique of communism, by insisting, “It is unprincipled to criticize Marxism from a liberal standpoint.” His work for the Soros Foundation in Zagreb has promoted an anti-nationalist “global culture,” hiring a network of anti-Croatian journalists to propagandize, in effect, for the Serbian cause.
These examples can be elaborated for each of the other 19 locations across Eastern Europe where George Soros operates. The political agenda of Soros and this group of financial “globalists” will create the conditions for a new outbreak of war, even world war, if it continues to be tolerated

Glenn Beck, the controversial American conservative radio show host and figure, once listed seven steps used by Soros to achieve his political objectives in foreign states (readers can judge for themselves using Croatia’s wartime and post-war examples, as well as multiple other examples in other areas of Europe and the world, to test the accuracy of Mr. Beck’s hypothesis):

  • Form a shadow government using humanitarian aid as cover.
  • Control the airwaves. Fund existing radio and TV outlets and take control over them or start your own outlets.
  • Destabilize the state, weaken the government and build an anti-government kind of feeling in the country. You exploit an economic crisis or take advantage of an existing crisis — pressure from the top and the bottom. This will allow you to weaken the government and build anti-government public sentiment.
  • Sow unrest.
  • Provoke an election crisis. You wait for an election, and during the election, you cry voter fraud.
  • Take power. You stage massive demonstrations; civil disobedience, sit-ins, general strikes and you encourage activism. You promote voter fraud and tell followers what to do through your radio and television stations. Incitement and violence are conducted at this stage.
  • Outlast your opponent.

 

 

While violence was not conducted, it goes without saying that Mr. Beck’s breakdown of the Soros election-engineering model in Croatia was applied, and Mr. Soros credited himself with mobilizing civil society in Croatia to change government in his book “Open Society.”
Who else, one may ask, was funded by Soros? The recipients of generous funds include Milosevic’s unofficial rag in wartime Croatia, Feral Tribune, which simply recycled the prior week of Belgrade propaganda, as well as the bizarre Marxist magazine Arkazin, the Alternative Information Network of Former Yugoslavia, and a host of other media houses that failed on the market after OSI (Open Society Institute) ceased subsidizing their second rate agitprop, because they had no readership.
Is it just these organizations that had or have ties with Soros?
No. Croatia’s President Ivo Josipovic met with him and praised him, and was quoted in dailytportal in 2010 after meeting with Soros that he would reactivate OSI in Croatia, which he did in 2011:
Croatian President Ivo Josipovic met in New York on Thursday the billionaire George Soros to discuss the situation in Croatia and in Southeast Europe and plans to renew activities of Soros’s Open Society foundation in Croatia. 

After the meeting, Josipovic told Croatian reporters that Soros was familiar with the situation in Croatia and the rest of the region and that he was interested in some information regarding the activities and financing of his projects in the region.
USAID http://www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=43914088&postcount=8074
National Endowment for Democracies
NDI https://www.ndi.org/files/1001_ww_newdemocs.pdf
VOA http://www.hri.org/news/usa/voa/2000/00-02-11.voa.html
International Crisis Group http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about.aspx
Human Rights Watch: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html
http://www.ex-yupress.com/vjesnik/vjesnik15.html
OSCE http://www.osce.org/zagreb/19519

De-Croatization Under the Slogan of De-Tudmanization

The massive and nontransparent subsidizing of both the Social Democratic Party in the Parliamentary elections and the Croatian People’s Party member, Australian Croat check “misplacer,” YPA General Veljko Kadijevic collaborator, and the apparent ICTY perjurer Stipe Mesic, and Western NGO pro Mesic media jihad in the Presidential election cycle of late 1999 into 2000 was convincingly a continuation of Soros’s and foreign centers of power jihad to bring back the pre-1990 anti-democratic political elite structure. The reason was simple – they had no interest in promoting Croatia’s national interests, and were, and remain, interested only in power and the possibility to get wealthy in the process.
The agenda was at this point, open: it was for a softer renamed Yugoslavia, minus Slovenia plus Albania, as was clearly outlined by Soros as he championed it publicly.
The first order of business was to attack Croatia’s Homeland War, and by default, everyone who participated in it and who helped build the Croatian state. As Franjo Tudjman was the statesman who led Croatia and its police and military forces to victory, saving the B&H Croats from being killed en mass or ethnically cleansed; the phrase to de-Croatize was “De-Tudjmanization.”

 

 

The Information War Against General Ante Gotovina

The most odious information warfare campaign was against General Ante Gotovina. Indicted in an ICTY indictment that was more or less built entirely on the agitprop of multiple Serbian military and political joint criminal enterprise participant Savo Strbac and his sham NGO called “Veritas,” whom the ICTY was working with since 1993 in a blatant conflict of interest that no major Western media outlet ever reported on to date.

http://mprofaca.cro.net/poa.html

Reference/source notes:

ii – It must be noted that Prof. Puhovski, a Tito regime false witness in the show-trial of the Croatian Spring participants, in particular Duško Čizmić Marović, chaired the Lustration, Public Debates on the Past und the Rule of Law Seminar in Zagreb, 17-20 February 2005, and published several articles on the topic of lustration in Croatia, more or less advocating at best a very soft form of it.
iii – Zarko Puhovski testified against Croatian Generals Ante Gotovina, Mladen Markac and Ivan Cermak at the ICTY, claiming that the Operation Storm effects were “tantamount to ethnic cleansing.” His testimony at the ICTY, as well as the “evidence” provided by Soros-funded HHO, were thrown out of the trial due to unreliable research methodologies.
iv – Here is a transcript of Luka Misetic’s cross examination of Professor Puhovski – no comment is necessary:http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/trans/en/090217IT.htm.
v – Professor Puhovski also, along with current Croatian Ambassador to France Ivo Goldstein Jr. (who was sent to the post in 2012 despite not possessing the ability to fluently speak the language, but did not forget to bring a picture of Tito for his office wall), formed the Udruzenja za jugoslavensku demokratsku inicijativu (UJDI) [The Associations for the Yugoslav Democratic Initiative], a political front party for the Yugoslav People’s Army General Staff that was against Croatian independence, in addition European and NATO integration, two of HDZ’s stated political and strategic objectives.
_______
About the author: Ante Horvat was born in the USA in 1970′s. He has recently moved to live permanently in Croatia and although spending most of his life in the USA he had made several temporary residence visits to Croatia during that time. His education and professional development in history and international relations also spans across the two continents. He is an active observer of and participant in the development of democracy in Croatia since the early 1990’s and its correlation with the developed Western democracies.

Next Post: Psychological Operations And Information Warfare Against Croatia And Croats – Part IV: Foreign Intelligence Agencies, Capabilities, and Croatia

Related Posts:
http://inavukic.com/2014/03/30/psychological-operations-and-information-warfare-against-croatia-and-croats-part-i/
http://inavukic.com/2014/04/02/psychological-operations-and-information-warfare-against-croatia-and-croats-part-ii/

The Competence of Judge Güney and the Boomerang Effect

Judge Mehmat Güney  Photo: World Bulletin

Judge Mehmet Güney
Photo: World Bulletin

Reblogged from http://www.miseticlaw.blogspot.com.au

By Luka Mistetic

Declarations of war often have a boomerang effect, causing more damage to the attacker than the attacker had ever anticipated.  Just ask George Bush what happened after he declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq.  In The Hague, the war launched on the ICTY’s judges in early 2013 continues.   As I have noted previously, Judge Theodor Meron has been subjected to what I figuratively refer to as a “Joint Criminal Enterprise” by a disgruntled few.  More recently, Judge Frederic Harhoff discovered the “boomerang effect” when he launched an attack on Judge Meron in an email to 56 of his “closest friends,” only to find himself attacked on multiple fronts by multiple defendants and ultimately disqualified from the Seselj case by a panel of his judicial colleagues.

Today comes a new attack on ICTY Judge Mehmet Güney of Turkey, this time on the pages of the Süddeutsche Zeitung (“SZ”).  In an article titled, “The Fight for Supremacy on the UN Tribunal,” the SZ reports (citing those sinister “anonymous sources,” but widely believed to be sourced by a certain “Balkan journalist” based in The Hague) that Judge Güney is “no longer really sure on his feet,” that he “communicates only in writing,”  and “is no longer able to monitor long conversations and at meetings loses his orientation.”  Moreover, the “anonymous sources” allege that Judge Meron is “pulling Judge Güney along with him for as long as Judge Meron thinks he needs Judge Güney’s vote.” SZ then states that had Judge Güney not voted with the “American President of the Tribunal, then there would be no stunning 3-2 decision in favor of the acquittal of the two Croats.”

The article concludes by stating that a “medical examination of one of the judges can only be ordered by the President of the Tribunal,” and therefore the “incompetent” Judge Güney cannot be removed from the ICTY before the end of his mandate in 2015 unless the judges elect a new judge to replace Judge Meron as President of the ICTY on October 1st.  This statement, combined with the article’s title, (“The Fight for Supremacy on the UN Tribunal”), makes it clear that the article is really just part of the campaign to discredit Judge Meron on the eve of ICTY elections for President of the Tribunal, a campaign which has been organized for months by the “Balkan journalist” based in The Hague.

But let’s look at the substance of the allegations against Judge Güney, who supposedly can “communicate only in writing” and is “pulled along by Judge Meron.”  The Gotovina Appeals Chamber Judgement was delivered on 16 November 2012.  Meanwhile, Judge Güney was the Presiding Judge and the Pre-Appeal Judge in the appeal of Milan Lukic, whose appellate judgement was delivered on 4 December 2012, almost three weeks after the Gotovina Appeals Judgement.  As the Presiding Judge and the Pre-Appeal Judge in Lukic, Judge Güney had primary responsibility for administration of that case, including resolving motions and preparing the actual Judgement.  Accordingly, those now anonymously attacking Judge Güney are also calling into question the legitimacy of the appeals convictions of Milan and Sredoje Lukic.  Indeed, if the Judge most responsible for preparation of the Lukic Judgement was incompetent, then the Judgement is not sound and must be reviewed.

But was Judge Güney really able to “communicate only in writing”?  The video of the delivery of the Lukic Judgement (again, delivered three weeks after the Gotovina and Markac acquittals), suggests that Judge Güney was able to communicate verbally without any problems.  Furthermore, he delivered the Judgement for 36 consecutive minutes, contradicting the claim that he is “no longer able to monitor long conversations and at meetings loses his orientation.”

It should be noted that Judge Meron was not a member of the Lukic Appeals Chamber, so Judge Meron was not there to “pull along” Judge Güney, as the SZ article claims.   Moreover, Judge Güney was a member of a 3-2 majority (along with Judges Agius and Morrison) that voted to grant two of Sredoje Lukic’s grounds of appeal.  Unless the “anonymous sources” of SZ are willing to go so far as to suggest that Judges Agius and Morrison (like allegedly Judge Meron) are also “manipulators of the incompetent Judge Güney,” the 3-2 vote in Lukic suggests that Judge Güney is able to reach decisions competently and independently of Judge Meron or anyone else.

Finally, it should be noted that the Lukic and Gotovina Appeals Chambers had three common judges:  Judges Güney, Agius and Pocar.  If Judge Güney were “incompetent” at the time of the delivery of the Gotovina Appeals Chamber Judgement, Judges Agius and Pocar would have had to know about it.  They would have had a duty to disclose to the parties in the Gotovina case that they believed one of their colleagues was incompetent at the time of judicial deliberations.  Instead, Judges Agius and Pocar, despite vigorously dissenting from the Majority decision, never suggested in their dissents that the Majority had reached its decision where one member of the Majority was incompetent.  Moreover, Judges Pocar and Agius then went on to sit with their colleague in the Lukic case, where they not only did not disclose any concern about Judge Güney’s fitness to be a member of the Appeals Chamber, but also had no concern about Judge Güney being named the Presiding Judge in the case. Indeed, Judge Agius in the Judgement went so far as to join Judge Güney (and oppose Judge Pocar) in forming a 3-2 Majority on certain issues in the Lukic Judgement.

Accordingly, the silence of Judges Agius and Pocar in the Gotovina and Lukic cases strongly suggests that Judge Güney was not incompetent at the time of delivery of both Judgements in November and December 2012.  If it were true that Judge Güney was incompetent at the time of delivery of both judgements, and Judges Agius and Pocar kept silent, then Judges Pocar and Agius would have to be disqualified from both cases along with Judge Güney, because both Pocar and Agius would have breached their ethical duties to disclose information critical to determining whether the fundamental rights to a fair trial and to an independent and impartial tribunal were violated by Judge Güney’s membership on both panels.

Those “anonymous sources” attacking Judge Güney on the basis of his vote in the Gotovina Appeal are thus also inadvertently calling into question the ICTY’s conviction of Milan and Sredoje Lukic, once again demonstrating the “boomerang effect” of going to war on false pretenses.

Just ask “Boomerang Fred” Harhoff.

Luka Misetic    Photo: Darko Tomas/Cropix

Luka Misetic Photo: Darko Tomas/Cropix

About Luka Misetic: Lawyer, based in the United States of America. Luka Misetic represents clients in state, federal and international litigation, including commercial, civil, white-collar criminal and international criminal cases. In business litigation, Mr. Misetic represents corporations and partnerships, as well as their directors, officers and partners in breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims, regulatory matters, trade secrets claims, fraud and negligence suits, and a variety of other claims. Mr. Misetic represented Croatian General Ante Gotovina before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, The Netherlands

Disclaimer, Terms and Conditions:

All content on “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is for informational purposes only. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is not responsible for and expressly disclaims all liability for the interpretations and subsequent reactions of visitors or commenters either to this site or its associate Twitter account, @IVukic or its Facebook account. Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of their writers and the writer will take full responsibility, liability, and blame for any libel or litigation that results from something written in or as a direct result of something written in a comment. The nature of information provided on this website may be transitional and, therefore, accuracy, completeness, veracity, honesty, exactitude, factuality and politeness of comments are not guaranteed. This blog may contain hypertext links to other websites or webpages. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of information on any other website or webpage. We do not endorse or accept any responsibility for any views expressed or products or services offered on outside sites, or the organisations sponsoring those sites, or the safety of linking to those sites. Comment Policy: Everyone is welcome and encouraged to voice their opinion regardless of identity, politics, ideology, religion or agreement with the subject in posts or other commentators. Personal or other criticism is acceptable as long as it is justified by facts, arguments or discussions of key issues. Comments that include profanity, offensive language and insults will be moderated.
%d bloggers like this: