Editorial

Here's one of his questions:

“In 2015, if, uh, I remember, one way or another... those who wanted to have the Special Court accused you of pushing it to defend yourself. And, pressure from the international community, you've asked for it and you want with this act to, uh, pave the way, um, for KLA members to go to jail. Now, the same man is still being charged, but in the other way, you're saying you still have it for yourself, even though now you're preventing him, uh, the Special Court to do or, for example, to create in, uh, The Hague judgments. Which Hashim Thaci are we talking about?” 

If we read it carefully, we learn that the above text is a comment that attacks Thaci's political officers rather than a question to him. What Thaci is expected to say next, he thinks. He is not at the defamatory of his position, because his attitudes do not waver but are reinforced by journalism. Just as in dictatorial regimes where journalists must constantly ask questions that would put the leader in the most favourable position.

And yet, even in this show, it's going to be a real threat. The President was out of sight. He didn't seem at all willing and even scared. From what he said, the old contradictions came up. Attempted by pressure from his party's deputies. [ The PDK] he described the mandatory but binding “processes.” Maybe Thaci needs basic explanations about the category or the mandatory, and the hypothetical, or the conditioning. The president's lame word can therefore be translated: “Special Court had to be adopted unconditionally, but on the other hand we had our terms. ”

That the president has serious problems with speech and limited knowledge - ignorance - testifies to the other controversial term used to describe his feeling for the work of the judicial system. “light or complete error” Our President said not realizing that light is not synonymous with the full. That Thaci is a functional illiterate this has been testified to by a very small vocabulary, and by similar mistakes in the wrong use of words.

But let's not disqualify the sentence. His strange “Zagreance” that violates the laws of logic was produced by the slowness of the work of justice institutions. But we're not stupid. We know that our president had been too committed to apprehending these institutions so that they could serve them exclusively. Such was identified by “Afera Proto” earlier, and by recently released wiretapping Thaci to Chief Prosecutor Alexander Lumezi.

We return to the international community's vows to the Special Court. He cited visa liberalisation, the country's membership in the Council of Europe, the rapid creation of the army, and a little later, he recalled new pledges, such as membership in Majsco and Interpol. But its contradictions peak when he says however, the Special Court is necessary and that the black cloud that has fallen over Kosovo must be cleared. <x) By thus linking the fate of certain individuals to the fate of a country and calling this relationship completely inevitable. According to Thaci, the entire Kosovo was being tried with the Special Court. And even at this point Thaci contradicts because a few minutes earlier trying to say he didn't change his mind, said individuals, not war or Kosovo, would be tried. A good journalist would intervene after every lame statement of the president, pushing him to be as clear as possible for the opinion. And here are some other necessary questions that should be asked:

Mr. President, how is it that on one side the court is a mandatory or intangible process, and there are conditions within the other? Who was given these vows, specifically? And why weren't these vows formalized by a written agreement? Can you write and read, and what is most important to understand what you read? Did you say earlier that individuals are being tried, how is it that you are saying otherwise? And so on.

Meanwhile, to play the role of a hypocritical Thaci did not hesitate this time. He said he would not oppose the will of the majority in the Assembly, and would sign the abolition of the Special Court. He said he would not take “the bias of” in this case, pointing again to how sadly small his general knowledge is, and how it leaps into the use of words.