[Lawgvr1955]

I am not writing this because I am anti-Clark, though that would be an accurate description. However, I have to agree with Slobo that his right of cross-examination is no right at all. How is he to cross Clark under the rules of this "court"? "We didn't have a meeting", "yes, we did", "no we didn't", "yes, we did", for two and a half hours. Apparently he can't cross Clark on such apparently relevant statements as Clark saying the war against Slobo was illegal.

This "show trial" doesn't pass the smell test.

[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.