Milosevic vs Clark: From the Heavily Edited Transcripts

un.org/icty ^ | 15-16 December 2003 | ICTY

[Destro]

JUDGE MAY: Are we in open session? Yes. 20 There are two -- three matters, potentially, which we have to 21 address at this stage. The first is the extent, if any, it is appropriate 22 with this important witness to have any evidence given under Rule 89(F), 23 he dealing with the accused very substantially on conversations, some of 24 which have been in dispute, in some cases heavily in dispute. And it 25 would therefore seem to us to be appropriate that those matters should be

Page 30363

1 dealt with in open session. 2 We are concerned at the evidence which it is proposed to be given 3 about the conflict - I'm referring to the end of the statement - and the 4 amount of resultant cross-examination which there must be, in fairness, if 5 the evidence is given. 6 And finally, we have to deal with the admissibility of the book as 7 a whole. 8 [The witness entered court] 9 JUDGE MAY: General Clark, I'm sorry you've been brought in. 10 There is a misunderstanding. But it doesn't matter because we're going to 11 have a debate about the extent of your evidence and how much we're going 12 to admit; and unless anybody objects, it seems to me, if you don't mind 13 sitting, listening, it may be no harm is done. 14 THE WITNESS: I have no objection, Your Honour.

...........................

1 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. 2 THE ACCUSED (Milosevic): [Interpretation] Mr. May. 3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. 4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't quite understand the 5 position of this witness since my understanding was that he would be 6 testifying in closed session and that you described that as a temporarily 7 closed session, and then, in the meantime, representatives of the 8 government of his country may be able to review the transcript, to approve 9 some of it, to redact some of it possibly, and only then to release it to 10 the public. I am not aware of any legal court in the world delegating its 11 authority of this kind to any government. This would be the first time 12 for any such thing to happen. Of course, you consider yourself to be a 13 legal court.

14 JUDGE MAY: We are not going to argue this point. We have made 15 our order. The reason that the government have any rights in the matter 16 at all is this, that in order to provide information to this Court, it is 17 occasionally - and I stress occasionally - necessary for governments to do 18 so, and they are allowed to do so under our Rules on certain terms, and 19 these are one of the terms which has been followed in this case. 20 Yes, Mr. Nice. Perhaps we should begin, and we will ask General 21 Clark to take the declaration if he would. 22 MR. NICE: May I diffidently remind Your Honour that you were 23 going to make some rulings. I didn't know if you intended to make them 24 before the witness started his evidence. No. Very well. My 25 misunderstanding.

15 JUDGE MAY: Before you begin, Mr. Milosevic, there are some 16 matters the Trial Chamber has to decide. 17 [Trial Chamber confers] 18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, before you begin cross-examining, you 19 should know that there are parameters in this case beyond which you cannot 20 go. We've already made an order which restricts the scope of 21 cross-examination. I'm not going to go into the reasons for it again. It 22 is limited to the statement which the witness has given, which means that 23 you are restricted in a way that you are not restricted with other 24 witnesses, because then you're allowed to ask any relevant matters. 25 You're restricted in this case to the witness's evidence. So you can give 1 -- ask him questions, of course, about what he's said here but not about 2 other evidence. He's given no other evidence against you apart from the 3 matter which General Clark has dealt with here. 4 So your cross-examination in this case is limited. 5 We have refused to admit the book. It's not part of the evidence. 6 We therefore will not allow some free-ranging cross-examination through 7 it, but you may, if you are entitled to do so, and that will be a matter 8 of relevance, you can, if you wish, ask General Clark about passages of 9 the book which are related to his evidence, and that largely will be -- 10 not entirely will be the matters which are already underlined. 11 So subject to those matters, of course you may conduct your 12 cross-examination, but you will be stopped if you go beyond those 13 particular bounds. 14 We've considered the time that you should have. We have in mind 15 that you should have some two and a half hours, if you so wish, to 16 cross-examine, and it's now for you to begin.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I don't understand at all 18 how you can limit my cross-examination to two and a half hours.

19 JUDGE MAY: Well, we would look at the time that we've given you. 20 It will be subject to others' convenience, but also if you use the time 21 properly and you want extra time, we would, of course, consider extending 22 it, but it depends on your use of it and it seems to me two and a half 23 hours should be adequate to deal with the limited matters which the 24 witness has given in evidence.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. I see now that 1 you're introducing some restrictions linked to the witness's book, and the 2 witness's book is linked to the credibility of this witness, which means 3 that I couldn't question the witness even in relation to matters that have 4 to do with his credit. Is that what it means or am I after all allowed to 5 ask certain questions along those lines?

6 JUDGE MAY: You know exactly what you've been allowed to do. You 7 must ask questions within those limitations.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. You will 9 probably allow me to ask at least some questions.

10 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: 11 Q. [Interpretation] General Clark, in your book you say that the NATO 12 military action Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 could not be called a 13 war.

14 JUDGE MAY: I don't think we're going to have that debate. That's 15 precisely what I've been talking about. You're not allowed a free-ranging 16 discussion about the NATO action. You're limited to the evidence which 17 the witness has given.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, a fundamental question here 19 relates to the NATO strike against Yugoslavia. You're not allowing me to 20 ask the witness about the war against Yugoslavia, of which he was in 21 command, then I don't know really what you're letting me ask him about.

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. The witness hasn't given any evidence about that 23 war. He has -- the Prosecution have chosen to call him on a limited 24 number of issues, and he has given evidence about a limited number of 25 issues. We will have to look elsewhere for evidence about those broader 1 issues which, if relevant for us to consider, you want to put in front of 2 us. You can't do it through this witness.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] 4 Q. General Clark, is it true that in an interview that you gave for 5 The New Yorker on the 17th of November, you said that the war that you 6 waged was technically illegal?

7 JUDGE MAY: Now, that is precisely the point. He's given no 8 evidence about the legality of the war. He's not gone into that in his 9 evidence. Now, concentrate on what evidence that he's given here and 10 you'll be allowed to ask the questions, but you can't go into these 11 broader questions with this witness. If they're relevant, we'll hear them 12 from another one.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I cannot understand, Mr. May, what 14 you are allowing me to ask this witness about. You're not letting me ask 15 him anything.

16 JUDGE MAY: Let me explain. The general has given evidence about 17 a series of meetings that you had with him. You yourself had with him in 18 1995, including comments which you have made. He has given evidence about 19 further meetings in -- at a time leading up to the events in the Kosovo 20 indictment. He has given evidence about meetings after Racak. Now, those 21 are all things, and they are meetings at which you were present, upon 22 which the witness has given evidence and you can cross-examine. The other 23 matters are dealt with, insofar as they are dealt with, by other 24 witnesses, and you can ask them about it. But as far as this witness is 25 concerned, and I thought it was plain, you can ask him about his evidence, 1 you can ask him about the statement he's made here, and your 2 cross-examination will be so confined. 3 So you can begin, for instance, by asking about the meeting in 4 August 1995 with Mr. Holbrooke and various other people. You can ask 5 about that, if you wish, if you challenge. If you don't challenge the 6 witness's evidence here, why then there's no need to cross-examine him.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, of course I challenge the 8 testimony of General Clark, because he has distorted the facts to a 9 maximum degree, and I will show that, but it is absolutely not clear to 10 me --

11 JUDGE MAY: You better get on with it. Put the questions. You 12 make these allegations, the witness should have the chance to answer them. 13 General Clark -- just a moment. You've just made an allegation of 14 a sort which a witness should have the opportunity of dealing with. 15 General Clark, the accused alleges to us that he challenges your 16 evidence. Of course he's entitled to do that. But what he does say is 17 that you've distorted the facts about which you've given evidence. He 18 makes that allegation. Perhaps you would like to answer the allegation.

19 THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honour, I gave the testimony to the best 20 of my recollection. The facts are exactly as I recollect them, and those 21 are the facts I gave the Court.

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, just in order to clarify 24 the basic attitude towards me in relation to this witness, is it in 25 dispute that General Clark was in command of NATO during the war against 1 Yugoslavia? And is it disputed that that was his most important role in 2 everything that related to Yugoslavia? And is it in dispute that you're 3 not allowing me to ask him anything at all about that?

4 JUDGE MAY: That's right. Now, ask questions -- if you wish to 5 ask questions, concentrate on those matters that you've been told about 6 several times. Now, what we're doing is wasting time going over this. 7 You've heard the ruling, and you must abide by it, and you're taking up

8 your time, you see, arguing.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So I cannot ask him anything at all

10 about the war waged by NATO against Yugoslavia. Is that what you're

11 saying?

12 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. May, that really is an

14 example showing that this is truly nothing more than a farce.

15 JUDGE MAY: Well, if you've got no questions for the witness, you

16 needn't ask them, but if you want to, you must get on with it now. I also

17 restrict your comments too.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well, Mr. May. I

19 will move on to questions that you will allow, though I think this is

20 scandalous that you are not allowing me to ask General Clark --

21 JUDGE MAY: That's exactly what I meant when I said you must

22 restrict your comments and not waste time.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. General Clark, you started your testimony with your biography;

25 isn't that right?

Page 30419

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. In your biography, your CV, I see that you were involved - and I

3 don't know how to put it - in some indirect relationships with your former

4 president, Clinton.

5 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I don't understand what the question

6 is.

7 JUDGE MAY: Don't -- General, if you don't understand a question,

8 you don't have to answer it.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Very well, General. Were you for many years a very close friend

11 of your former president, Clinton?

12 JUDGE MAY: What is the point of all this? Now, you've been told

13 to answer the questions -- I mean, to ask relevant questions which the

14 witness can answer. That's not such a question.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --

16 JUDGE MAY: May I point out to you you have yet to challenge once

17 a specific point in the witness's evidence.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, it is relevant because in

19 the CV, it is stated that he only knew his former president superficially,

20 whereas he personally told me in Holbrooke's presence that they were very

21 close friends from Arkansas, that they went hunting together, that they

22 consult one another about everything. So it's quite different from what

23 is represented in his CV, and I want to establish that the witness is not

24 telling the truth starting from his CV.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes. The witness -- you can ask the witness about

Page 30420

1 that. It's a conversation you allege you had with him.

2 Perhaps, General, you could just deal with that.

3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I did not tell President Milosevic that

4 I was a close friend of President Clinton. I've never been hunting with

5 President Clinton, and I did not and do not consult with President Clinton

6 about everything.

7 My relationship with President Clinton was formal, it was correct.

8 He was the president of the United States, I was an officer in the United

9 States army. I worked, during the time I was involved in the Dayton

10 negotiations, with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and as the

11 Supreme Allied Commander Europe, I had a dual reporting chain. I reported

12 through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the secretary of

13 defence, and I reported to the NATO Military Committee and to the NATO

14 Secretary-General.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. So you are denying that in that building that you call a hunting

17 lodge, when Holbrooke, you, and I were walking around, that both you and

18 Holbrooke were speaking about your direct and close relationships with

19 President Clinton. So you're saying that you didn't say that and that we

20 didn't talk about that?

21 A. Your Honour, I have no recollection of any such conversation, and

22 I've never told anybody that I had a direct and close relationship with

23 President Clinton.

[Destro]

The UN kangaroo court would not even let Slobo use Wesley's own book to cross examine him!!

"this is truly nothing more than a farce."

[Destro]

bump

[XHogPilot]

CLARK: Well, Your Honour, I gave the testimony to the best of my recollection. The facts are exactly as I recollect them, and those are the facts I gave the Court.

99.999% Pure Clinton!

[endthematrix]

The A$$hole Judge: Your fate has already been decided. If you wish to comment, only strict limits on what you say will be enforced. And you have a time restriction. I'm truly sorry, that is not relevant to the issue at hand. Try again. Time is up.
Thank you for the post. Power hungry globalists know the power they wield. Do Americans?

[G.Mason]

This is right out of Alice in Wonderland.

[G.Mason]

From Alice in Wonderland .......

" At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, called out "Silence!" and read out from his book, "Rule Forty-two.

All persons more than a mile high to leave the court."

Everybody looked at Alice.

"I'm not a mile high," said Alice.
"You are," said the King.

"Nearly two miles high," added the Queen.

"Well, I shan't go, at any rate," said Alice; "besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now."

"It's the oldest rule in the book," said the King.

"Then it ought to be Number One," said Alice."

[Democratshavenobrains]

I was hoping this trial would have a "Law and Order Surpise Ending", like Slobo breaking Clark down on the stand, and making him admit he was Clinton's gay boyfriend.

[A. Pole]

At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, called out "Silence!" and read out from his book, "Rule Forty-two.

All persons more than a mile high to leave the court."

Everybody looked at Alice.

"I'm not a mile high," said Alice. "You are," said the King.

"Nearly two miles high," added the Queen.

"Well, I shan't go, at any rate," said Alice; "besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now."

"It's the oldest rule in the book," said the King.

"Then it ought to be Number One," said Alice.

Here comes the judge!

[RAY]

So much for those vaunted international tribunals!

[Lawgvr1955]

I am not writing this because I am anti-Clark, though that would be an accurate description. However, I have to agree with Slobo that his right of cross-examination is no right at all. How is he to cross Clark under the rules of this "court"? "We didn't have a meeting", "yes, we did", "no we didn't", "yes, we did", for two and a half hours. Apparently he can't cross Clark on such apparently relevant statements as Clark saying the war against Slobo was illegal.

This "show trial" doesn't pass the smell test.

[Hoplite]

Slobo was allowed to cross examine Clark upon evidence which Clark had given to the court.

He was not allowed to wander off into irrelevance as is his wont.

Picture Saddam on trial for invading Kuwait or murdering his countrymen and attempting to waste the court's time with lectures on UN Sanctions or civilian casualties of our bombing - it would play well with the Ba'athists back home and to the leftist antiwar crowd, but wouldn't be pertinent to the charges against him.

Same deal with Slobo.

The pertinent points of Clark's testimony, being Slobo's control over the Bosnian Serbs, and the nature of Serbian actions in Kosovo, were not addressed by Slobo, merely reinforcing the fact that he has a fool for a lawyer.

[Seselj]

You obviously know nothing about law. Such rules do not exist in any other court.

[BigBobber]

Slobo wanted to attack Clark's credibility. He sought to do so by using Clark's own book and his CV as presented by the Clark. Certainly seems like the thing a court should allow.

I haven't seen all of Clark's testimony, but it appears all he presented to the court was hearsay - this is what Slobo told me in a meeting. What court allows hearsay evidence like this?

[faithincowboys]

Clark ia a National embarrasment. He wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him across his Rat bastard face. He should have to defend his "technically illegal" War in Kosovo. This is a show trial.

[breakem]

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think first person reporting of a meeting or conversation is considered hearsay. I will defer to someone who comes along with an authoritative answer.

[faithincowboys]

I think Clark's statements on the illegality of the War he waged are germane to the proceeding. It should interest the Court and the world community if Clark (self proclaimed expert on international law) waged a war in defiance of the UN and all international norms. If Clark wants to denigrate and criminalize America's War against Saddam, it is mandatory that he face similar scrutiny.


The truth of the matter is that Clark waged a War without UN approval. He morphed a strictly defensive alliance (NATO) into an offensive war machine. Isn't that how our friends on the Left would describe the foreign policy that led to the war in Kosovo had the President in charge not been a Democrat? Clark and Clinton bombarded infrastructure and civilian centers. The passenger train of Serb innocents that was bombed should be relevant.

The fact that Clark and Clinton and the Left refuse to stand for Kosovo is telling. Every moment they sling arrows at the just war against Saddam, yet they are unwilling to have their actions judged against international law--the hypocrisy of it is chilling. Who could have predicted that their actions in Kosovo could defeat all of their arguments against Bush? The inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Left will damn them for years to come.

[mark502inf]

As Hoplite said:

Slobo was allowed to cross examine Clark upon evidence which Clark had given to the court.

Exactly. And that is normal in a court. The ICTY has already allowed too much Milosevic grand-standing.

One of the reasons I am dead-set against the ICTY and similar type courts is because of exactly what we are seeing here--we have an indisputably guilty war criminal on trial and in a year and a half all they've managed to do is make him a hero back in the country that only a few years ago threw him out of office and delivered him to the court. And when all is said and done, they don't even have the death penalty--something Milosevic richly deserves.

Unfortunately, I don't what the alternative is to the ICTY at this time and in this particular case.

BTW, just because Clark and Clinton are who they are and you disagree with the Kosovo intervention and the ICTY, it does not follow that Milosevic is a victim or innocent or anything other than a mass-murderer

[faithincowboys]

If I were Slobo, a dreadful thought, I would say that Clark told me in private that Clinton was bombing Kosovo to distract from his domestic problems and to establish a legacy that consisted of more than BJs in the Oval Office.
Who could refute that? I would use Clark's picture with the war criminal's hat on to buttress my contention-- Clark wasn't repulsed by war crimes and butchery, he was merely following orders to save the skin of a a domestic and international criminal leader, William Jefferson Clinton.

It's so funny. If Saddam were questioning Tommy Franks at the Hague, the judges at the Hague would make Judge Ito look like he ran a tight ship. I assure you, Franks would be subjected to a body cavity search and nothing would be declared beyond the scope. Didn't our Euro-leftists friends in Belgium recently try to indict Franks and Rumsfeld and Bush on war crimes? I assure you, they would let Saddam ask anything. They would have Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal as Saddam's lawyers.

The Left is sickening!

[Destro]

it is hearsay because no back up exists. It is only recollection.

[breakem]

D is yours a legal definition?