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.
Might turn into a nice piece of deduction on your part - we'll see.
Why then did Clark/Clinton concentrate on getting Slobodan and not Osama or Saddam?
Is the question too confusing for you? Try, why did Clark/Clinton side with the 'head choppers'and the terrorists raising hell in Bosnia, Kosovo and worldwide?
Even an amature can figure it out. One answer is that both wanted a War for legacy, and any war and the easiest war was their 'no brainer' answer.
Milosevic denied them victory in that Kosovo is still part of Yugoslavia and NATO's German boots aren't tramping all over Serbia.
Milosevic should be Time's man of the year.
Well, contrary to FReeper mythology, the KLA was never on the State Dept's list of foreign terrorist organizations. The source of the characterization of the KLA as terrorists was U.S. Envoy Robert Gelbard's comments to that effect in February 1998 at press conferences in Begrade and Pristina where he said "[I] condemn the attacks against the police and others by the group that calls itself the UCK [Kosovo Liberation Army]. As I have said before, I consider these to be terrorists actions and it is the strong and firm policy of the United States to fully oppose all terrorists actions and all terrorists organizations".
Gelbard's comments have gone down in U.S. diplomatic lore with Ambassador Glaspie's July 1990 statement to Saddam Hussein that "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait" and Dean Acheson's 1949 (50?)speech in which he left South Korea out of the U.S. security "perimeter".
There is a school of thought that says in both the Korea and Iraq cases, the U.S. remarks caused N. Korea and Hussein to believe they had received a "green Light" to attack and both did. Gelbard's description of the KLA as terrorists is similarly thought by some to have led Milosevic to believe he would be OK to launch a major Serb offensive in Kosovo against "terrorists".
But it was the Serb brutality and atrocities committed during that March 1998 offensive and its follow-on operations aginst not terrorists, but ordinary Kosovar citizens that transformed the KLA from a few hundred extremists and terrorists into a broadly supported popular rebellion against Serb rule with thousands of fighters and tens of thousands of supporters.
Gelbard probably should have known better than to give Milosevic even an indirect "out" for taking action. He already knew of the brutality of Serbian tactics as evidenced by earlier comments at the same press conference when Gelbard said: "We... condemn the violence which is occurring. The official violence, promulgated particularly by the police, we believe accounts for the great majority of the violence which is going on in Kosovo. We feel it is unwarranted and (inaudible). If there are concerns about public security, they could be managed in a much better way, geared to building confidence with the population..."
As a final thought, Gelbard called the KLA terrorists, but then also said the Serbs were responsible for most of the "unwarranted" violence. What does that make the Serbs?
False dichotomy made for political purposes. We can, and will, get both. Half-way there right now.
Why then did Clark/Clinton concentrate on getting Slobodan and not Osama or Saddam?
Again, we could have and should have done all of the above, but not getting all the rats doesn't mean we should get none. Putting Slobo behind bars is a positive step forward. Legitimate question on why Clinton did not take more aggressive action against bin Laden after numerous attacks against Americans by Al Qaeda. One of the many reasons I detest Clinton. Clark, however, was the military commander of U.S. European Command. He did not have responsibility for Iraq or the area where bin Laden was active nor for the CIA and other intell and special ops forces involved in the hunt. Lots of things wrong with Clark, screwing up the hunt for bin Laden isn't one of them; and neither was the Saddam situation.
This item is from 2001 and refers to National Liberation Army (NLA) ethnic Albanians in Macedonia; not the KLA as erroneously listed in the parentheses. Go to the list and do a search, there is not a single KLA leader on it. Confusing the KLA and NLA is a common error since the Albanian acronym of UCK is used by both groups. K for the UCK in Macedonia stands for Kombetar--meaning National in Albanian. K for the UCK in Kosovo stands for Kosovo.
I suspect only temporarily.
Putting Slobo behind bars is a positive step forward Rewarding the Islamist terrorists with defacto title to Bosnia and Kosovo was a step back. As will be rewarding them with a Palestinian state.
was the military commander of U.S. European Command. He did not have responsibility for Iraq NATO, the US and Britain, was keeping Iraq in a box. If it wasn't Clark, then who? There were Muhajeen, imported from Afghanistan to fight the Serbs, who were trained and reported to Asama. They are still in the Balkans.
Britain, Russia, including Serbia are what we need to help contain Islamists. Supporting Osama recruited Islamists against Russia and now Serbia, is a Foreign Policy plunder.
Why didn't we side with Serbia? Watching the 'tribunal' I don't see where Milosevic was anything but a 'fuzz' ball' in what went on in Bosnia who did the best he could to protect Kosovo from Islamists anarchists.
His testimony isn't about what he would have done in regards to Iraq, it was about what he actually did do and see, so his position on Iraq and all the pollster driven hypotheticals therein are immaterial to the evidence he gave at Milosevic's trial.
Look, I'm not the person you're looking for - you need to find someone with a "Clark 2004" bumper sticker and vent your spleen upon them - just do yourself a favor and make sure they're smaller than you.
-Mark
I don't agree with you, and I have stipulated the reasons why. If you find that profoundly condescending, then here's some more condescention for you - grow up.
Merry Christmas back at ya!
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.