Posted on 12/20/2003 1:03:57 AM PST by 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.
You got it wrong. Milosevic cannot be a war criminal as he was not waging any war. He did not commit crimes, unless you count normal anti-guerilla operations within territory of one's own country as criminal.
If you look closer at the this trial, you will see that ALL witnesses are damaged. This court cannot prove anything - the simplest explanation is that the accusations are false and that Milosevic is being railroaded.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or Do not fit an elephant to the curve.
Are you saying that 4200 bodies were being examined? Sources please. BTW, how many people should die in a year out o population of 2 million?
Read more about Kosovo at http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Kosovo
What about you, Hoplite? Go on record-is the KLA a terrorist organization to you?
Filled with allegations against the US/NATO campaign in Kosovo, as well as the Clinton/Clark legacy.
As to Clark, I don't subscribe to the hyperpolarized view of politics prevalent on FR. He has been found wanting in his choice of party and statements regarding Iraq since announcing his candidacy, either of which are enough to disqualify him for consideration for my vote.
Milosevic's trial, and Clark's testimony therin, however, is a seperate issue from his candidacy. If you are ultimately unable to seperate the two, then that's an issue for you to work upon, not me.
I take it this is a euphemistic way of saying either don't question the blatant inaccuracies in my posts or I'll scurry off to the AM and have your post pulled.
Referring to you as ignorant, btw, was charitable on my part, because if you are not ignorant then you are a liar.
Your choice.
Yes, the KLA utilized terrorism, which qualifies them for inclusion in the 'terrorist organization' category unless it can be proven that the leadership had nothing to do with those acts - yeah, right.
But they are less of a terrorist organization than Milosevic et al, which puts them in the same boat as Rashid Dostum and various other Afghan warlords who became allies of convenience in efforts to address larger problems and who are now being pressured into conforming to civilized norms.
I looked it up. If the information is correct it means that there were 4200 dead (55% unidentified) from undetermined time which included the intensive guerilla and anit-guerilla warfare and earlier time, intensive NATO bombing, large movement of population during which normal funerals can be impossible (a significant number of people die in every large population for natural reasons while disease rate increases in time of chaos).
So what conclusion can you draw? 4200 (or less if you discount negative or missing identification) dead during such civil war combined with foreign intervention looks rather low to me.
Less than half was identified, and some of them could have died from natural causes, some could be killed by KLA (as colaborators, Serbs, Gypsies, in gang/vendetta killings), some died from NATO bombing etc. And I guess you count KLA fighers as civilians?
Not KLA fighters, not victims of NATO bombs, and not Serb civilians. The methodology excludes those groups from the victims considered in the report. The "Killings" section of the report deals with Kosovar Albanian victims of Serb forces, and it explicitly states this in the introduction and details in the body of the report.
This is beyond your amateur hour understanding and efforts to discredit.
The very date YOU pointed say that LESS that half was identified and it does not specify which of the dead were the civilian Albanians or how they died.
Not KLA fighters, not victims of NATO bombs, and not Serb civilians. The methodology excludes those groups from the victims considered in the report.
Really? How did they exclude them? BTW, why the Serbian government forces would want to kill the civlians when they were busy fight the guerillas while being bombed by NATO? Just because they are evil malicious Serbs who want to prove that they are monsters?
This is beyond your amateur hour understanding and efforts to discredit.
OK, tell me what would be the normal number of dead in a civil war with foreign involvement? A dozen? In American Civil War on the Confederate side 200 000 soldiers died (see America's Major Wars ). In Kosovo by proportion it would mean 50 000 without counting the civilian deaths.
And where this 500-100 thousand victims of "genocide" went?
A. Pole, because most wars are not declared, international customary law makes war contingent upon a state of armed conflict, not a declaration of war. As you yourself stated in your post, the Serbs were conducting "anti-guerilla operations".
Of course, conducting anti-guerilla operations is not illegal and Milosevic is not on trial for "anti-guerilla operations". As the 60+ counts against Milosevic detail, deliberately causing the deaths of thousands of non-combatants is the problem, not fighting guerillas.
I must admit I was trolling a little with the post you responded to. Its one thing to be against the ICTY or Clark. It is entirely another to be for Milosevic. I just wanted to see who would scuttle out of their cyber spider hole to win the "Have a Slivo for Slobo " award.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.