[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]

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.

[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.

[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.