Replies

The prosecution of Milosevic is not contingent on the testimony of Clark. I think Clark hurts the case. Clark was called to testify by European Leftists who want to advance his candidacy.

Even you would have to admit, Clark is a damaged witness. The War was waged against Serbia without a UN resolution (Clark is running around saying that such a war is immoral, illegal), he said the War he waged in Kosovo was "technically illegal", he was forced out by his superiors due to "character and integrity" issues, he wore the hat of a known war criminal for a photo-op (such a picture suggests that the crimes are not crimes, that they are tolerable methods of War) and he also scared the allies by suggesting we bomb Russian troops over a non-essential airstrip (just so he could save face).

I think justice is served by Milosevic being convicted and by Clark being challenged by Milosevic. An accused, even in a war crimes tribunal, should be able to question his accusers. Clark has been careless with his words and actions and any trial that isn't a farce would allow the accused to question Clark. The impeachment of Clark as a witness is entirely appropraite and not detrimental to the case against Milosevic.

The truth is Clark should not have been called. He was a person who was deemed by his superiors to not have the right stuff. He and Milosevic were both disgraced by the War-- a legit tribunal would have no place for Clark. The case should be dismissed today if Clark's testimony is the basis for it.

Clark's testimony about getting General Perisic in Serbia to turn off the air defence radars in Bosnia, because there were not two seperate systems, only one overall integrated defence system, speaks directly to the charge of command responsibility.

Milosevic appears to have missed the relevance of that bit of evidence, no big deal, he's not the only one - but the judges will have understood the importance of that particular bit of testimony and how it flies in the face of Milosevic's denials as to who was controlling the war in Bosnia.

The devil is in the details, and this case is about details, thousands of them that have been piling up for the last two years.

So when you say that you think Clark's testimony hurt the prosecution's case, you'll have to understand that I don't think you know enough about the matter to have a meaningful opinion.

I think Clark hurts the case. [...] Even you would have to admit, Clark is a damaged witness.

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.