Milosevic vs Clark: From the Heavily Edited Transcripts

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

[billbears]

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

Yes. Only ask questions which will show your guilt and get us all home for the holidays quicker. Sheesh, tell me this is some sort of joke. This isn't a trial. The outcome was never in doubt

[Sonny M]

I assure you, they would let Saddam ask anything. They would have Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal as Saddam's lawyers.

I don't think either of them have law degrees, either way, Ramsey Clark has volunteered to be Saddam Husseins lawyer if he can get the chance.

[faithincowboys]

Oh, yes, Ramsey Clark-- a friend of Dan Rather(he helped secure the fawning interview of Saddam)a friend of Saddam and a friend of every other unelected, anti-American despot in the world. It's hard not to associate the treason of Ramsey Clark with the treason of Wesley Clark-- they are both traitors who should never have access to power.

[faithincowboys]

The prosecution of Milosevic is not contingent on the testimony of Clark. I think Clark hurts the case. Clark was called to testify by European Leftists who want to advance his candidacy.

Even you would have to admit, Clark is a damaged witness. The War was waged against Serbia without a UN resolution (Clark is running around saying that such a war is immoral, illegal), he said the War he waged in Kosovo was "technically illegal", he was forced out by his superiors due to "character and integrity" issues, he wore the hat of a known war criminal for a photo-op (such a picture suggests that the crimes are not crimes, that they are tolerable methods of War) and he also scared the allies by suggesting we bomb Russian troops over a non-essential airstrip (just so he could save face).

I think justice is served by Milosevic being convicted and by Clark being challenged by Milosevic. An accused, even in a war crimes tribunal, should be able to question his accusers. Clark has been careless with his words and actions and any trial that isn't a farce would allow the accused to question Clark. The impeachment of Clark as a witness is entirely appropraite and not detrimental to the case against Milosevic.

The truth is Clark should not have been called. He was a person who was deemed by his superiors to not have the right stuff. He and Milosevic were both disgraced by the War-- a legit tribunal would have no place for Clark. The case should be dismissed today if Clark's testimony is the basis for it.

[Hoplite]

Clark's testimony about getting General Perisic in Serbia to turn off the air defence radars in Bosnia, because there were not two seperate systems, only one overall integrated defence system, speaks directly to the charge of command responsibility.

Milosevic appears to have missed the relevance of that bit of evidence, no big deal, he's not the only one - but the judges will have understood the importance of that particular bit of testimony and how it flies in the face of Milosevic's denials as to who was controlling the war in Bosnia.

The devil is in the details, and this case is about details, thousands of them that have been piling up for the last two years.

So when you say that you think Clark's testimony hurt the prosecution's case, you'll have to understand that I don't think you know enough about the matter to have a meaningful opinion.

[faithincowboys]

And why would Clark be the only one to know that? I think Clark's present political positions and ambitions and his disgraceful and career ruining conduct of the War make him an unwise witness. He has simply said and done too much, I think what he did to help the prosecution could have been obtained by other means and other witnesses (unstained and apolitical witnesses).

Also, if it were a NATO operation, have other allied Generals been called? What about Hokbrooke? Since you seem to be following this so closely, please dissuade me from my belief that Clark was called up for politcal reasons.

I cop to not following it as closely as you seem to be, but I stand by my contention that Generals unfit to survive the War should not be star witnesses in war crimes tribunals.
I think others could have provided what he gave without the controversy.

By the way, I have been awake enough to know that it was a a bit of a surprise and a last minute decision to have Clark testify. I'd love to hear why you think that might be.

Slobo should have a huge blow up of Clark in the butchers hat and ask rhetorically, "Would Captain America wear this man's hat for the camera if he was such a bad guy?"
Johnny Cochran or Mark Geragos could get Milosevic off with prosecution witnesses like Clark.

[faithincowboys]

"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?"

Actually, I think you're wrong. Clark's argument is that the fruits (the capture of a war criminal the likes of which this world has rarely seen) of an illegal war are not worth it. He maintains that he is still as opposed to this war as he ever was. His stance also suggests that gross human rights violations (without WMD proliferation) are not suffecient reasons for this nation to go to war without the UN. BY the way, NATO was meant to be a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. So, on priniciple, Clark's candidacy opposes the very foundation of the case against Milosevic.

Why is the Srebrinca massacre any different from Halabja? Clark has said, "old crimes" don't matter. Clark has said the war was techincally out of the bounds of international law. He has said that all wars are illegal without the UN. He has been lukewarm to the War against an even more brutal tyrant. I think Milosevic should be allowed to ask, "why are you here to testify against me, when you spend most days exonerationg the only man to use chemical weapons on civilians since World War 1?" I think that is a legit question.

The fact that you can't see how gravely Clark is compromised is baffling.

[ValerieUSA]

Clark is lying - it is obvious.

[Hoplite]

Clark is not a star witness - any more than General Naumann was.

He merely adds to the body of evidence against Milosevic on the various counts, and I note that his testimony on the meetings with Milosevic prior to Allied Force corroborates that of General Naumann, who testified in June of '02.

This isn't a topic for those with short attention spans or people looking for knock-out legal blows, it's complicated and requires some effort to appreciate what's happening.

[ValerieUSA]

There is no comparison between Milosovic and Hussein -- we found the mass graves in Iraq. The intelligence was correct. Intervention was righteous.
The alleged "genocide" in Kosovo never happened. There is no evidence.... no mass graves. The intelligence was wrong. NATO's actions were illegal and based on a lie told by Clinton.

[faithincowboys]

So should General Boykin (a man I admire immensely but whom ,I acknowledge, made himself radioactive) testify in the trial of Saddam? Do you believe there is such a thing as a witness with baggage?

By the way, your comments seem to suggest that he is a non-essential witness-- face it, he was called to bolster his candidacy. Everything he could testify to is not unique to him, and if he is not so fragile, why was he shletered by the judge to such extremes? I think what Mr. Clark learned in the process of his "technically illegal" War should be allowed to be challenged by the accused, and from other posts, it appeared you felt the same way.

Can you imagine being a defendant in a trial where the Chief Investigator declared the investigation to be unconstitutional and the judge prohibited you from pursuing that line of questioning? Clark should never have testified. His present philosophy on dictators and his historic record in the Balkans should have taken him out of the pool of witnesses for the prosecution.

[Hoplite]

There is no evidence.... no mass graves.

Incorrect - over 4,200 individuals have been recovered from mass graves in Kosovo by 2001, and another 800 have been recovered from mass graves in Serbia, where the Serb forces moved the corpses in an attempt to hide them from the ICTY's investigators.

Go inflict your ignorance upon someone else, please.

[ValerieUSA]

And how many were Serbians vs "ethnic Albanians"?
Sorry, Clinton said there were 100,000s of thousands of Albanians being murdered by Milosevic's Serbs in "ethnic cleansing" genocide.
Did not happen.

[faithincowboys]

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry082603.asp

The above link is interesting. It appears the only think Clark should testify about is abject failure and practical irrelevance. It seems Mr. Short saved Wesley's bacon. The only thing Clark is a witness to is his own moral and tactical incompetence.

[Hoplite]

You're developing a Clark complex.

Nip it in the bud, kid, it's not healthy, intellectually or mentally.

[XHogPilot]

The entire trial transcript (redacted) is available at: http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm

Dec 16th transcript is far more revealing. Slobo confronts Clark with

• KLA as terrorists, by displaying photos of Serbs severed heads held up by Moslem KLA terrorists as well as jovial photos of Clark with KLA commanders.
• Remarks by the Chairman JCS, General Shelton "I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues..."

Clark responds: pp 30521, line 14 - I don't accept the definition of the KLA as a terrorist organisation. I want to state that for the record.

Clark responds: pp 30532, line 2 by reading from his notes flowery quotes from Sec Def Cohen and President Clinton. He never confronts Shelton's statement. Finally, after Clark's testimony comes to a close, he returns with additional "evidence" (pp 30586 line 3) by his introducing into evidence a FAX dated that day, Dec 16, 2003 from former President Bill Clinton, vouching for the character of Clark. Interestingly, Milosovich and his amicus fail to point out Clinton's testimony is worthless as a convicted perjuror.

[faithincowboys]

I am laughing.

I admit I loathe him. But the objective, unemotional part of my brain stands by all of my positions. He is a fatally flawed witness and the foreign policy positions he has taken regarding Iraq (had they been implemented in the Balkans, Milosevic would be in Belgrade, not the Hague)
make him more useful to Milosevic than the prosecution.

[faithincowboys]

That is funny and tragic. Having to get Clinton to hurry up and fax to vouch for your character is a joke. That's sad that Clark couldn't withstand any scrutiny and interrogation (especially since nearly every topic was off limits to Milosevic).

Clark is a pathetic SOB. That Labour party judge that prevented Milosevic from using Clark's characteristically stupid statements against him should be ashamed. What a sham! What tribunal worth anything hinges on the unchallenged testimony of General (Screw up) Clark. What a tragic comedy! Milosevic is a butcher and they can't even run a fair trial. They should be able to run a fair trial to a fault and still convict him effortlessly. I am bleeping astonished. The fact that the Euro-Leftists stooped so low to bolster Clark's amoral candidacy is also damning. Someone should tell them had Clark's proscriptions for Iraq been used in Kosovo they would be somwhere other than at Milosevic's War Crimes tribunal.

The whole thing is sickening and incoherent!

[faithincowboys]

You seem to be aw shucks about Hussein's crimes. There seems to be an embellisment of Milosevic's crimes and a mitigation of Hussein's crimes. That is perhaps why you feel so compelled to defend Clark.