Replies

And why would Clark be the only one to know that? I think Clark's present political positions and ambitions and his disgraceful and career ruining conduct of the War make him an unwise witness. He has simply said and done too much, I think what he did to help the prosecution could have been obtained by other means and other witnesses (unstained and apolitical witnesses).

Also, if it were a NATO operation, have other allied Generals been called? What about Hokbrooke? Since you seem to be following this so closely, please dissuade me from my belief that Clark was called up for politcal reasons.

I cop to not following it as closely as you seem to be, but I stand by my contention that Generals unfit to survive the War should not be star witnesses in war crimes tribunals.
I think others could have provided what he gave without the controversy.

By the way, I have been awake enough to know that it was a a bit of a surprise and a last minute decision to have Clark testify. I'd love to hear why you think that might be.

Slobo should have a huge blow up of Clark in the butchers hat and ask rhetorically, "Would Captain America wear this man's hat for the camera if he was such a bad guy?"
Johnny Cochran or Mark Geragos could get Milosevic off with prosecution witnesses like Clark.

Clark is not a star witness - any more than General Naumann was.

He merely adds to the body of evidence against Milosevic on the various counts, and I note that his testimony on the meetings with Milosevic prior to Allied Force corroborates that of General Naumann, who testified in June of '02.

This isn't a topic for those with short attention spans or people looking for knock-out legal blows, it's complicated and requires some effort to appreciate what's happening.