Milosevic vs Clark: From the Heavily Edited Transcripts

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

[Lawgvr1955]

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

I have no difficulty that cross-examination is limited to matters "relevant" to the inquiry. However, generally, at least in American jurisprudence, one can attack the credibility or bias of a witness by using prior inconsistent statements or matters which would explain why they may testify in favor of one party or the other. Generally, statements about the matters testified to found in a book written by the witness would be relevant and material in examination.

I would agree that Slobo did not serve himself well by being his own counsel or by failing to address the issues you stated. Nonetheless, it appears that the right to cross-examine the witness was so limited as to make it almost nonexistent.

The issues of national security and the right of an accused to face his accuser cause great difficulty in Western law as one requires great secrecy and the other openess and the exposing of evidence. That is in part the reason that spies rarely are prosecuted and deals are made between countries to swap caught intellegence agents, spies and traitors.

I have every reason to believe that the trial of Saddam will be a media frenzy with his attempts to get a last shot at the U.S. But that is in part the "cost" of trials as opposed to summary execution. While it would be best for the U.S. that Saddam be tried by a military tribunal as far as "keeping a lid" on the defendant, I think that the better result would be if the Iraqi people try him. It will send a strong message to tyrants that their own people may one day stand in judgment of them. May keep a few criminals from trying to subjugate their people. Also, it will be much more "acceptable" to the people of the world that the Iraqis mete out the justice in Saddam's case than a group of United States military officers.

[Destro]

You forgot that congress denied President Clinton authorization for the Kosovo war. Clinton ignored congress anyway.

[faithincowboys]

No one said that Slobo is anything other than a butcher, but our self righteous friends who say the Iraq War is illegal should be able to handle a little heat their way. They have pelted the Bush administration mercilessly, I think they deserve some of their own medicine.

It is worth knowing that they didn't have UN backing, that American forces did nearly all of the heavy lifting and that "collateral damage" happened in that War.

Also, they demand that Saddam should go to the Hague. They allow Milosevic to ask the most mundane questions. A man on trial for violations of international law and war crimes should be allowed to present a quote from the Supreme General of the Army that opposed him. Clark's contention that the War he waged agsinst Milosevic was illegal is relevant. Should Clark be up on charges. Where are the indictments from Brussels for Clark and Clinton?

It's funny how this is the one time the global Left doesn't want to put American foreign policy on trial. I find it shocking that they aren't concerned about Milosevic's dignity. Where oh where are the Slobo apologists? Are they all working on behalf of Mr. Hussein these days?

[faithincowboys]

Thank you for pointing that out. Clinton, the law abider, defied Congress as well. The Left is shockingly hypocritical.

[Destro]

Rules of cross examination allow all questions-without time limit-unless it is a kangaroo court.

[Hoplite]

Milosevic was allowed to address Clark's credibility by introducing General Shelton's comment on Clark's character, and by questioning him on the Mt. Igman incident.

Also, if the witness is a part of the conversation he is testifying about, the conversation isn't hearsay, at least not to my understanding of the matter.

[Destro]

I am sorry-you are right - Hearsay testimony is secondhand evidence; it is not what the witness knows personally, but what someone else told him or her. Scuttlebutt is an example of hearsay. In general, hearsay may not be admitted in evidence. Unless it is the UN court-which allows it!

There is another term for "he said/she said" type of evidence when no witnesses oher than the two who had the conversation are present.

[breakem]

thanx

[Destro]

Slobo sneaked that comment in and the court was in a panic-breaking its own rules and contacting Clinton during procedings to get Clinton's statement. Also-since when does there exist a one challenge to credibility rule in a court of law? If they allowed one such example why not another to back up the first?

[Hoplite]

None of the issues you raise are relevant to the counts of Milosevic's indictment.

Sorry, but it's as simple as that.

[faithincowboys]

I disagree. For history and to satisfy the perennial concerns of the Left, the accused (a monstrous SOB to be sure) should be allowed to question his accusers, question the War (deemed illegal by NATO's Supreme Allied Commander) and to ask the all-time favorite question of the Left, "Did the end justify the means?"

Also, Milosevic might want to discuss the brutality on both sides, that continues to this day. Was it, like the Left loves to say, a War with no good guys? By allying ourselves with the Muslims of the Balkans and other ethnic minorities, did we choose the lesser of two evils? Where is the rhyme of Jesse Jackson, shouldn't he have a little ditty about the lesser of two evils is still evil? Isn't is like the Iran/Iraq War? Wasn't Osama a partisan of the Muslims of the Balkans? Which KLA rebel will soon oppose America? Did we play Dr. Frankenstein again? Blowback?

Where is the Left? Why isn't American foreign policy on trial? Where are the shades of gray? Since when is a "technically illegal" War waged without UN approval not relevant in a War Crimes trial?

[faithincowboys]

One would think that an admission about the "technical illegality" of the War right out of the horse's mouth would be germane to the proceedings. Clark knew it was illegal and continued on? Hmmm? I wonder if that's relevant.

[faithincowboys]

Are you aware that the Left despises our intervention in Afghanistan against the Soviets? No less a Democrat than Hillary Clinton just came out in defense of the Russians, the cousins of the Serbs, and their invasion of Afghanistan. She suggested that Soviet doctrine was better for women than Sharia. Should we have wanted a more modern, egalitarian, Christian army to defeat the misogynistic Balkan muslim Army? The Left should be heard on these matters.

Why should the Left be allowed to deny itself the treatment it unleashes on everyone else?

[Hoplite]

Any bias on Clark's part is pretty much self evident, given that he commanded NATO during the Kosovo conflict.

His credibility, on the other hand, could be and was questioned by Milosevic, who goaded him about the deaths of Americans on Mt. Igman, implying that their deaths were Clark's fault - producing a copy of the purported safe passage fax from Mladic he referred to would have been a fine move on Milosevic's part, but, alas, he missed his opportunity.

As to Saddam, I'm leaning towards an Iraqi trial under adult supervision, lest we get some gaudy pseudolegal Ceaucescu fiasco, which would serve no purpose, IMO.

[Hoplite]

None of the issues you raise are relevant to the counts of Milosevic's indictment.

Sorry, but it's as simple as that.

[faithincowboys]

So I assume you can guarantee me that if Saddam were on trial at the Hague, he wouldn't be allowed to question Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush?

You are being a dupe for the Left. Regardless of partisanship, if Nato waged an illegal war (which the man who crafted it suggests) against Serbia, the leader of Serbia at the time should be allowed to force the witness against him to explain his remarks. That is basic. If Mr. Clark cannot be questioned--it is a show trial. Why in the Hell is Clark there anyway? Clark was testifying on his conduct of the war and his communications with Slobo and others. If Clark, Like Shelton asserts, has no integrity and character and was forced to resign and admits that he led an illegal War against Serbia, how in the Hell is that beyond the scope?

By the way, when is the last time a prosecution used a discredited witness to attack a defendant. Clark was forced out in disgrace, why are the European Leftists calling him to jolt his sagging Presidential bid. If this is a politicized show trial, why are you defending it.? Yes, Milosevic should be found guilty. Sadly, he will not be put to death.

It is a foregone conclusion that Milosevic committed war crimes, what remains in doubt is whether Clark will be able to criticize our War in Iraq without consequences, aided by a global Left that wants America to hand over its' sovereignty. Clark's performance is designed to get him in the White House, he has foreign money, a global media apparatus, billionaire financiers and no conscience. Your desire to see him protected by Euro-Leftist judges (who would persecute Tommy Franks) from reasonable interrogation is frankly disgraceful and short-sighted. Why in the Hell, doesn't Clark have to answer for his actions and statements?

[Incorrigible]

Bump

[faithincowboys]

"As to Saddam, I'm leaning towards an Iraqi trial under adult supervision"

I find this statement revealing and offensive. Are the Iraqis Children? Maybe we should send him to the Hague where he would be unconstrained by Euro-Leftists to interrogate our leaders-- a sea change from how they disallowed Slobo from asking any prickly questions to the great liberal hope General Clark.

[Hoplite]

Clark's stance on Iraq is not relevant to the counts on Milosevic's indictment.

This is really a difficult concept for you to wrap your mind around, isn't it?

As to who's a dupe of whom, yeah, like, whatever.

[BigBobber]

So I assume you can guarantee me that if Saddam were on trial at the Hague, he wouldn't be allowed to question Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush?

I agree with your point here, but Clark is a PROSECUTION witness. If the prosecution had not called him I agree that Slobo would have no reason to question him.

Does Clark have direct knowledge that Slobo killed someone illegally or ordered someone to do so? I don't think so, so he shouldn't be a part of this trial.

But once the prosecution calls him, his credibility is certainly germane, as would his own illegal activity in the matter in question. Hopefully Saddam's prosecution will not be so stupid as to call George Bush as a witness.