Milosevic attacked Clark's personal character by citing criticism of him by Gen. Hugh Shelton

sfgate.com ^ | Wednesday, December 17, 2003 | Elaine Sciolino, New York Times

[Destro]

The Hague, Netherlands -- U.S. presidential politics can be played on any stage, and for the past two days it has unfolded behind closed doors in a courtroom in the Netherlands.

As President Bush basked in the capture of Saddam Hussein, Gen. Wesley Clark, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has had a strangely coincidental opportunity to point to his history with another man accused of war crimes: former President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia.

[leprechaun9]

Isn't that the Neurenberg Defense, "I was only following (Clinton's) orders?"

[stylin19a]

What does identifying liars have to do with the right to lie ?

Nice try....you set up the straw man, break him down then take me to task for something you assume.

You are the one that said leaders should be "more responsible" with their free speech... which kinda defeats free speech.

[cwb]

"Who is the arbiter of responsible free speech ?" Now a straw man?

Ohh...I also forgot the Supreme Court, who after ruling on CFR, has obviously made a (bad) contribution on the limitations of free-speech. We also have slander, libel and pornography laws that, also define limitations on free-speech. Look...all I'm saying is that those in a position of power and influence have a responsibilty to measure their speech. Do you have a problem with that request?

And to be quite honest, I wouldn't have a problem with laws that punished those for the "deliberate" misrepresentation (lies) of known facts, that are intended to harm another person...similar to our libel and slander laws. Free speech isn't a license to destroy someone's life with fabrications and fallacious accusations...absent of evidence. I'm sure you wouldn't take kindly to being labled a pedophile...and you would do all you could to seek justice and retribution from such a claim. Unfortunately, the damage may have already been done, as whoever your enemy may have been, would've already succeeded in destroying your character. I'm still trying to figure out your objecion to people being responsbile for their "free" speech.

[Melinator]

You are correct. Why is Bush doing this?

[cwb]

By the way, what does this mean:

"You are the one that said leaders should be "more responsible" with their free speech... which kinda defeats free speech"

How does being responsible and honest with speech, defeat...or even deter, free speech? Are you saying lies, misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies or the only things that qualify as free speech? Will you defend my right to free speech (and punishment) if I accuse you of some heinous act that I know is a lie? Come on, now.

[stylin19a]

Where in the Sam Hill does the first amendment say:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of "responsible" speech ?
or "truthful" speech ?

People ARE responsible for what they say...and get to suffer whatever consequences - good or bad - that go with it. It doesn't dimish their right to say it the way they want to.

It seems to me, the only way anyone could abide by your assertions is to utter only the phrase "no comment"...anything else could be misconstrued by someone somewhere. Wait, I take that back. that comment would probably be miscontstrued.

How is the speech free, when anyone must couch their words and responses because someone might take it out of context or take offense ?

Hence my original question: Who is to be the arbiter of responsible speech ?

You also said: "that as much as dissent is tolerated in this country"...dissent is "tolerated" ????". It seems to me it's time a refresher course on the constitution is needed.

[Godebert]

Well said!

[cwb]

We are not talking about taking something out of context. I am talking about "lies." There are many "lies" that are not protected under the 1st Amendment, free-speech clause. If they were, we wouldn't have perjury laws, libel laws, slander laws, etc. And why are you babbling about dissent, when I made it clear it is tolerated. You responded to my first post as if was suggesting banning speech when all I called on was a liitle more responsbility from our poitical leaders. Get a grip.

[stylin19a]

You still don't get it. when you put qualifyers on speech, it's no longer free.

Disconnect your assertion of responsible speech from free speech then there's room for discussion.

You don't have any clue what you are saying when you say "dissent is tolerated", do you ?

that's pretty scary.

Freep on.

[cwb]

Watch out for the helicopters:)

[Travelgirl]

You are so right.

[cwb]

Thank you. I didn't think asking for a little responsibility...and maybe even some accountability, when it comes to the defamation of someone's character, was that unreasonable. There's just too many excuses in our society used to excuse people's abhorant behaviour. From Ted Kennedy's accusations to Dean and Clark's conspiracy theories and even Clinton's lies, their is a complete lack of accountability for what people say.
If we had an objective media my concern may be tempered, but unlike the media, who has in the past held Delay, Lott, Burton, etc, "accountable" for their free speech, no such accountability is levied at the Democrats for their outrageous comments. Free speech doesn't give anyone a license to lie.

[Bob J]

Click Here for the RadioFR website!

ON 7/10pm! “UNSPUN” with AnnaZ and Diotima!

It's our last show of the year,
and we're going out with a bang...
Special Guest

Kenneth Timmerman
will be discussing his latest book!

Click HERE to listen LIVE NOW while you FReep!

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Radio FreeRepublic is sponsored by the FreeRepublic Network.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

B) The photo below (Clark and Mladic exchanging covers) was taken a year before Clark had this conversation with Slobo. Why so chummy Wes?>>>

Because Wes was stupid and thought he could balls his way through a meeting with Mladic, never realizing that Mladic was far more arrogant than he was. Wes was almost fired as a result of that little stunt, I hear.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Clinton and Gen.Clark have something in common: both of them are war criminals>>

Not with regard to stopping Serb nazis from ethnically cleansing their former territory.

With regard to Cliton and the war on the unborn otoh....

[Mo1]

During a break in Tuesday's testimony, Clark and the tribunal prosecutors contacted intermediaries who contacted Clinton. The former president swiftly faxed a brief letter to Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor in the tribunal.

"Contrary to Mr. Milosevic's claim, Gen. Wesley Clark carried out the policy of the NATO alliance, which was to stop massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, with great skill, integrity and iron determination," the letter stated, according to officials at The Hague.

But Clinton doesn't seem to clear up the issue that Clark was fired

[Destro]

How about that the character witness for Clark - Clinton - FIRED Clark?

[Destro]

Yup-Clark's character witness-Clinton-FIRED his ass.

[faithincowboys]

I must say, I am pleased that Slobo attacked Clark's integrity-- I think Clark's actions of late have made Shelton's comments look mild. By the way, our friends the Europeans called Clark to testify merely to elevate Clark's Presidential campaign.

I wish Slobo was able to challenge Clark more strenuously (of course, they scaled back his defense) on the legality of the War in Kosovo.

If Mr. Clark wants to declare America's War in Iraq illegal, unnecessary and unjust, I am more than happy to see him challenged on the War he is using to prop up his disgraceful run for the Presidency.

Clark is scum and so is Slobo. Clark is no patriot, I don't care how long he wore the uniform. He is terrible-- how he has attacked the troops, our intel agencies, our country and a war time President has aroused my fury. Not to mention, Clark's constant flip-flops and lies. I seriously loathe the man. He is worthy of our hate.

Richard Miniter, Author of Losing Bin Laden, was right when he said, "Clark won't get elected, but he we'll lose the respect of his countrymen." And boy has he, he is a piece of garbage.

[cwb]

Yeah...it would be interesting if we ever got to the truth for the reasons for Clark's dismissal (according to CLinton). Unfortunately, we're are now looking at both Clinton/Clark protecting their Kosovo legacy and I fear the truth has left the building. Neither one of these guys can afford to have the other guy talking about what he may really know.