Informazione
DOPO QUATTRO ANNI CONTINUANO A SALTARE IN ARIA LE CHIESE CRISTIANE IN
KOSOVO
http://www.exju.org/comments/584_0_1_0_C/
[ex-nju/kosovo e metohija] 15-22 dicembre
[19 dicembre]
la chiesa serba ortodossa di urosevac, sebbene fosse pattugliata
dall’unmik, è stata colpita da alcune granate.
decani ml
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/78709
forum18.org
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=217
...la distruzione, i danneggiamenti e gli atti di vandalismo nei
confronti delle chiese ortodosse in kosovo sono cominciati in modo
sistematico già dal 1999. lo scopo delle azioni -che con l’arrivo delle
forze ‘di pace’ internazionali si sono intensificate- è quello di
cancellare dal kosovo ogni traccia di storia e cultura serba e
non-albanese...
l’editoriale di sava janjic
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/78595#1
---
I DATI E LE IMMAGINI SULLA DISTRUZIONE DELLE CHIESE IN KOSOVO SI
TROVANO AL SITO:
http://www.kosovo.com/destruction.html
KOSOVO
http://www.exju.org/comments/584_0_1_0_C/
[ex-nju/kosovo e metohija] 15-22 dicembre
[19 dicembre]
la chiesa serba ortodossa di urosevac, sebbene fosse pattugliata
dall’unmik, è stata colpita da alcune granate.
decani ml
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/78709
forum18.org
http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=217
...la distruzione, i danneggiamenti e gli atti di vandalismo nei
confronti delle chiese ortodosse in kosovo sono cominciati in modo
sistematico già dal 1999. lo scopo delle azioni -che con l’arrivo delle
forze ‘di pace’ internazionali si sono intensificate- è quello di
cancellare dal kosovo ogni traccia di storia e cultura serba e
non-albanese...
l’editoriale di sava janjic
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/78595#1
---
I DATI E LE IMMAGINI SULLA DISTRUZIONE DELLE CHIESE IN KOSOVO SI
TROVANO AL SITO:
http://www.kosovo.com/destruction.html
Milosevic "trial" synopsis, 15--17 Dec., 2003
1. On Criminal Clark's testimony:
1.A) THE PERFUMED PRINCE MAKES HIS DEBUT (WESLEY CLARK - DAY 1) -
December 15, 2003
1.B) WESLEY CLARK, A MAN IN LOVE WITH HIMSELF - December 16, 2003
2. UNDERAGE AND DRAFTED INTO THE B-H ARMY (Synopsis Dec. 17, 2003)
=== 1 ===
Almost full transcripts of the "testimony" can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm
Pictures can be seen at:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/draftWC.htm
--- 1.A ---
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121903.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: THE PERFUMED PRINCE MAKES HIS DEBUT
(WESLEY CLARK - DAY 1)
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 19, 2003
Retired American General Wesley Clark testified in front of The Hague
Tribunal on Monday and Tuesday. From the outset it was apparent that
his testimony would be stage-managed and restricted so as not to
embarrass the "perfumed prince" or his government.
At the outset President Milosevic objected to the terms of Clark's
testimony saying, "I don't quite understand the position of this
witness since my understanding was that he would be testifying in
closed session and that you described that as a temporarily closed
session, and then, in the meantime, representatives of the government
of his country may be able to review the transcript, to approve some
of it, to redact some of it possibly, and only then to release it to
the public. I am not aware of any legal court in the world delegating
its authority of this kind to any government. This would be the first
time for any such thing to happen. Of course, you consider yourself to
be a legal court."
It turned out that the U.S. Government had no real need to redact the
transcript. President Milosevic's ability to cross-examine Clark was
so radically limited that he couldn't ask any questions unless the
prosecution had already asked about the topic first. Essentially the
prosecution dictated the terms of the cross-examination, and the
so-called "trial chamber" enforced those terms.
Before Clark's testimony even started the so-called "Presiding Judge"
Richard May, expressed concern that Clark's witness statement was too
broad, and would therefore enable too wide-ranging of a
cross-examination by President Milosevic.
Mr. May also expressed concern that admitting Wesley Clark's book
would enable President Milosevic to ask questions about the contents
of the book. Therefore, it was decided that the book would not be
exhibited, with the stated objective being to limit President
Milosevic's cross-examination.
After the Examination-in-chief was concluded, Mr. May was very keen to
limit the cross-examination. The fist thing he said to President
Milosevic was "Mr. Milosevic, before you begin cross-examining, you
should know that there are parameters in this case beyond which you
cannot go. We've already made an order which restricts the scope of
cross-examination. I'm not going to go into the reasons for it again.
It is limited to the statement which the witness has given, which
means that you are restricted in a way that you are not restricted
with other witnesses, because then you're allowed to ask any relevant
matters. You're restricted in this case to the witness's evidence. So
you can give -- ask him questions, of course, about what he's said
here but not about other evidence. He's given no other evidence
against you apart from the matter which General Clark has dealt with
here. So your cross-examination in this case is limited."
"We have refused to admit the book. It's not part of the evidence. We
therefore will not allow some free-ranging cross-examination through
it, but you may, if you are entitled to do so, and that will be a
matter of relevance, you can, if you wish, ask General Clark about
passages of the book which are related to his evidence, and that
largely will be -- not entirely will be the matters which are already
underlined. So subject to those matters, of course you may conduct your
cross-examination, but you will be stopped if you go beyond those
particular bounds."
Wesley Clark's examination-in-chief was of no real value to the
prosecution. He had no important evidence to speak of. In fact he made
a better case against himself than he did against Milosevic.
On August 1, 1975 the Helsinki Final act
[http://www.hri.org/docs/Helsinki75.html%5d was signed by the U.S.
Government and also by Yugoslavia.
Signatories to the Helsinki final act are obliged under Sec. VI to
“refrain from any form of armed intervention or threat of such
intervention against another participating State,” and to “refrain
from direct or indirect assistance to terrorist activities, or to
subversive or other activities directed towards the violent overthrow
of the regime of another participating State.”
Section II of the Helsinki Final Act states that “the participating
States will refrain from any acts constituting a threat of force or
direct or indirect use of force against another participating State.
Likewise they will refrain from any manifestation of force for the
purpose of inducing another participating State to renounce the full
exercise of its sovereign rights. Likewise they will also refrain in
their mutual relations from any act of reprisal by force.”
“No such threat or use of force will be employed as a means of
settling disputes, or questions likely to give rise to disputes,
between them.”
During his examination-in-chief Clark explained that he met with
Milosevic several times in order to force him to withdraw Yugoslav
army and police forces from Kosovo. Clark says he told Milosevic that
if he didn’t remove the army and the police then NATO would attack
Yugoslavia.
I knew that Clark was evil, but I had no idea that he was so
incredibly stupid. He just confirmed to the world that he, Wesley
Clark, went to a sovereign state and told the head of state that
unless they removed their army and their police forces from their own
territory that they would be bombed, and as we know Yugoslavia was
bombed.
Wesley Clark quite clearly proved that he broke international law, but
he didn’t demonstrate that Milosevic did, his “evidence” was worthless
to the prosecution.
At one point Clark bragged to Mr. Nice that he told Milosevic, “NATO
is going to be asking – these [NATO] leaders are going to be asking
what is it that you [Milosevic] are trying to do to this country? You
forced professors to sign loyalty oaths, you have crushed democracy,
you have taken a vibrant economy, you've wrecked it. They're going to
be asking, what kind of a leader are you?"
First of all, what Clark said was completely untrue. Professors didn’t
have to sign any loyalty oaths to Milosevic. Not even professors who
support DOS allege such a stupid thing. The economy was wrecked by
sanctions imposed from outside, and Milosevic was elected in
multiparty elections.
Clark went on to explain to Mr. Nice that after he made that remark to
Milosevic then he didn’t make any more progress with him in the
“negotiations”. Will wonders never cease? Wesley Clark went to
Yugoslavia, met with the head of state, presented him with threats and
ultimatums, generally behaved like a belligerent jerk, hurled lies and
insults at him, and now he wonders how come he didn’t get anywhere? How
dumb can this guy be? The man seems to take pride in his own arrogance.
The only thing that Clark said, which even remotely incriminated
Milosevic was when he said that he asked Milosevic: "Mr. President,
you say you have so much influence over the Bosnian Serbs, but how is
it then, if you have such influence, that you allowed General Mladic
to kill all those people in Srebrenica?" Clark said that Milosevic
replied by saying, “Well, General Clark, I warned Mladic not to do
this, but he didn't listen to me.”
Of course the only alleged witness to this alleged conversation was
Joseph Kruzel, and he’s dead. But it defies belief that Milosevic
would tell someone like Wesley Clark something like that. Slobodan
Milosevic has never attributed any killings at Srebrenica to Mladic.
Slobodan Milosevic has consistently claimed that mercenaries, and not
the VRS, carried out killings. Secondly, he has consistently stated
that he fond out about Srebrenica after the fact, so how could he have
told Mladic not to do it ahead of time?
Because Kruzel is dead, we have Clark’s word against Milosevic’s word,
and Milosevic branded Clark’s claim as a blatant lie. I’m inclined to
agree with Milosevic here. I don’t believe for a second that Milosevic
said that. It conflicts with everything else he had been saying. I
find it very hard to believe that Milosevic would confide in Wesley
Clark and tell him something that he didn’t tell anybody else.
Wesley Clark spoke about the MUP and VJ’s actions in Kosovo, Mr. Nice
asked him to explain what his sources of information were and Clark
replied by saying, “I got this from both the news media and other
reliable sources.”
The news media, and some unnamed “reliable sources.” Well now I really
am impressed with the prosecution’s case! Mr. Nice got the former NATO
Supreme Allied Commander and the former Commander-in-Chief of the
United States European Command to testify on the basis of what he saw
in the media. Excelsior to you Mr. Nice! Words can’t express how
impressed I am with your case.
When the cross-examination did start, Mr. May limited it to two and a
half hours. As he explained to President Milosevic, ”two and a half
hours should be adequate to deal with the limited matters which the
witness has given in evidence.” In other words “Judge” May was saying,
“Why should we give you a bunch of time? We won’t let you ask him
anything anyway.”
The elephant in the room was of course Wesley Clark’s command over the
NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, and President Milosevic was
prohibited from asking him any questions about that.
Yes you read that right, Slobodan Milosevic was the president of
Yugoslavia, and while he was the president of Yugoslavia, Wesley Clark
conducted a war against Yugoslavia, and this “minor detail” was
something that President Milosevic was prohibited from asking
questions about.
Let’s get this perfectly clear President Milosevic asked the following
question, “Mr. May, just in order to clarify the basic attitude
towards me in relation to this witness, is it in dispute that General
Clark was in command of NATO during the war against Yugoslavia? And is
it disputed that that was his most important role in everything that
related to Yugoslavia? And is it in dispute that you're not allowing
me to ask him anything at all about that?”
Mr. May’s response was “That's right,” and so President Milosevic
asked him again. He said, “So I cannot ask him anything at all about
the war waged by NATO against Yugoslavia. Is that what you're saying?”
And May said, “Yes.”
At that point President Milosevic denounced the proceedings as a
farce, and then in order to prove President Milosevic right “judge”
May said, “I also restrict your comments too.”
The first substantive topic that Clark spoke about in
cross-examination was his meeting with Mladic regarding the Contact
Group Plan in 1994. For some reason Clark went out of his way to
describe Mladic as angry and belligerent, he said that the meeting was
unproductive because of Mladic’s alleged intransigence.
Pictures [http://www.srpskapolitika.com/veliki/mladic-clark.jpg%5d from
the meeting tell a different story. They show a smiling Clark, and a
happy looking Mladic wearing each other’s hats like a couple of buddies
out having a good time.
The Cross-examination was grinding and tedious. President Milosevic
was repeatedly prohibited from bringing up matters of key importance.
Milosevic attempted to bring up the fact that Wesley Clark admitted in
the November 17, 2003 issue of the New Yorker that NATO’s Kosovo war
was “technically illegal” because according to Clark, “The Russians
and the Chinese said they would both veto it. There was never a chance
that it would be authorized.”
I guess if Clark thinks that the NATO bombing was “technically
illegal” then that makes him technically a war criminal, because he
commanded it. Unfortunately, Milosevic couldn’t make that point
because his microphone was constantly being switched off by Mr. May.
Mr. May was behaving as if the U.S. Government had attached electrodes
to his testicles and would give him a shock if he allowed Milosevic to
even get a question related to the war out of his mouth. Mr. May was
unusually quick to switch off Milosevic’s microphone during Clark’s
so-called “testimony.”
During Clark’s examination-in-chief he boasted that he took Milosevic
aside and “warned him that if he didn't comply with the request of the
United Nations [SC RES 1199], that action would be taken against him
in the form of bombing.” The “request” Clark is referring to is the
withdrawal of Yugoslav security forces from Kosovo.
President Milosevic asked Clark if Resolution 1199 authorized the use
of force against Yugoslavia and all Clark would say was, “The content
of the Resolution is a matter of public record, and I was following
the instructions from NATO and from my government.”
Clark is right, it is a public document, and it turns out that
Resolution 1199 doesn’t authorize any bombing. Therefore, the
instructions issued to Clark by the U.S. Government and NATO
contradicted the resolution.
Furthermore Resolution 1199 simply demanded, “the withdrawal of
security units used for civilian repression.” Seeing as how no
Yugoslav army or police units were in Kosovo for the purpose of
repressing civilians Yugoslavia wasn’t obliged to withdraw any of its
security forces. All of Yugoslavia’s security forces were in Kosovo to
protect the civilians.
Clark was obviously interpreting Resolution 1199 to suit his own
purposes. I’m sure NATO was already planning its war and Clark was
just looking to get any resistance to a potential NATO ground invasion
out of Kosovo. Therefore, Clark was telling Yugoslavia to get its
forces out of Kosovo and he was using this vaguely worded part of the
resolution as his justification.
I’ll post a report on Day 2 of the Wesley Clark farce tomorrow.
--- 1.B ---
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121603.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: WESLEY CLARK, A MAN IN LOVE WITH HIMSELF
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 20, 2003 [Synopsis of December
16, 2003 proceedings]
As with day one of Clark’s “testimony”, much of day two was spent
discussing Slobodan Milosevic’s roll at the Dayton peace negotiations.
In the most cynical display I’ve seen, Wesley Clark was trying to use
Slobodan Milosevic’s leading roll in ending the bloodshed in Bosnia
against him. The essence of Clark’s testimony was Milosevic took the
leading roll in the negotiations; therefore he must have taken the
leading roll on the battlefield.
The fact of the matter was that NATO wouldn’t deal with the Bosnian
Serb leadership. As Clark himself explained, “they were indicted war
criminals, and so it wasn't our desire to speak to either Karadzic or
Mladic.”
Because the most senior Bosnian Serb leadership couldn’t attend the
negotiations, lest they be arrested, the remedy was to form a single
delegation joint delegation of Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska. The
delegation consisted of three members from Republika Srpska and three
from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and as he held the most
senior position among the delegates Slobodan Milosevic led the
delegation and was given the decisive vote. Without Slobodan Milosevic
there would have been no way to negotiate and end to the war.
The agreement to form the single delegation was reached on August 29,
1995 at the Yugoslav army residence in Dobanovci. Present at the
meeting were: The president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
Zoran Lilic; the President of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic; the
president of Montenegro, Momir Bulatovic; the president of the federal
government, Dr. Rade Kontic; federal Defence Minister Pavle Bulatovic;
and the Yugoslav Army General Chief of Staff, Colonel General Momcilo
Perisic. President of the Republic of Srpska, Dr. Radovan Karadzic;
vice-president Dr. Nikola Koljevic and Dr. Biljana Plavsic; president
of the Assembly of Republika Srpska, Momcilo Krajisnik; the president
of the Republika Srpska, Dusan Kozic; Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr.
Aleksa Buha; the Commander of the Main Staff of Republika Srpska
Colonel-General Ratko Mladic with Generals Zdravko Tolimir, Milan
Gvero, and Djordje Djukic.
Under the terms of the agreement reached by the Governments of
Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska:
<< The leadership of Republika Srpska is in agreement with the
complete coordination of its approach to the peace process with the
leadership of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the interests of
peace.
The leadership of Republika Srpska agrees that binding decisions for
the delegation in relation to the peace plan be made by the delegation
at a plenary session based on a majority of votes. In the event of an
equal number of votes, the vote of President Slobodan Milosevic would
be decisive. >>
Also present at the meeting were the patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox
Church, His Eminence Pavle and Bishop Irinej Bulovic, who bestowed
their blessings on the agreement.
So we can see that the single delegation came about on the basis of an
agreement between the government of Yugoslavia on the one hand and the
government of Republika Srpska on the other. The agreement was reached
to coordinate the approach rather than any kind of alchemistry on the
part of Milosevic.
The Republika Srpska leadership was locked out of the process by NATO
and so President Milosevic had to go to Dayton in their place, and he
went in their place only after he received their authorization.
He insisted on having this agreement and having the casting vote so
that there wouldn’t be a repeat of what happened with the Vance-Owen
plan.
President Milosevic worked for tirelessly for peace. He took the
leading roll at Dayton and this stupid “court” is now trying to hold
that against him.
Wesely Clark loves himself more than anybody I’ve ever seen. Slobodan
Milosevic asked him a simple question about a criticism leveled
against him by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Henry
Shelton. Shelton says, in the November 17, 2003 issue of the New
Yorker that “the reason he [Wesley Clark] came out of Europe early had
to do with integrity and character issues ... Wes won't get my vote”
Wesley Clark responded by saying “I want to, Your Honor, thoroughly
disabuse the accused of the idea that there was any reflection on my
character and integrity.” Then he proceeded to read out a 10 minute
long speech about what a great guy he is. By the time he finished I
was beginning to wonder if he would ever shut up.
I’m sure that after listening to Wesley Clark talking about what a
great guy Wesley Clark is for 10 minutes that Slobodan Milosevic was
quite disabused indeed.
All Clark had to say was that Shelton is a political opponent of his,
and was only saying bad things about him for political reasons, sort
of like what he was doing to Milosevic.
As if listening to him read a 10 minute long speech about how great he
is wasn’t enough, Wesley Clark procured a fax from Bill Clinton
calling him a great officer and calling Milosevic a liar.
Clinton calling Milosevic a liar that’s a good one; Bill Clinton the
man who was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, because he
lied to a grand-jury is calling Slobodan Milosevic a liar.
Of course, Clark couldn’t just hand the fax in to the “judges.” No, he
had to read the whole damn thing out, and we had to listen to him
going on again about what a great guy he is. It’s no wonder they call
him the perfumed prince.
Wesley Clark also made his views on the KLA known. He said “I don't
accept the definition of the KLA as a terrorist organization. I want
to state that for the record.”
Very well Mr. Clark, you are now on record saying that these happy KLA
members holding the severed Serbian heads in this photo aren’t
terrorists.
Wesley Clark also said that “NATO had no relationship with the KLA,
period.” Really? In this next photo we see the top NATO and KLA
leadership posing for a friendly group photo. Clark himself is the one
on the far right.
Slobodan Milosevic said, they looked like “[the] three Musketeers
where he [Clark] is like D'Artagnan with the leaders of these
terrorists”
It looks to me like, far from having no relationship, that NATO has a
very friendly relationship with the KLA. It also appears to me that
the KLA are terrorists. It's your choice, you can believe Wesley Clark
or you can believe your eyes.
All together Wesley Clark’s testimony was pretty worthless. There was
a lot of fanfare, but little substance. Clark really didn’t have
anything to say. Aside from what a wonderful guy he thinks he is.
Wesley Clark’s “testimony” proves beyond any doubt that this so-called
“trial” is a farce. The restrictions imposed on President Milosevic’s
cross-examination were ridiculous. The whole thing was ridiculous.
This was an embarrassment for the “tribunal” and it was an
embarrassment for the U.S. Government. They brought in this
high-profile witness with a lot of fan fare. It attracted global
attention and what did the world see? They saw a vainglorious jerk
hiding from difficult questions behind the “presiding judge’s”
skirts…um…I mean robes.
=== 2 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121703.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - DECEMBER 17, 2003: UNDERAGE AND DRAFTED
INTO THE B-H ARMY
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 17, 2003
Two secret witnesses were heard at the “trial” of Slobodan Milosevic
today; B-1619, a Muslim from Zepa and B-1401 a Muslim from Srebrenica.
B-1619 was an underage member of the B-H Army who was trained in
Srebrenica and stationed in Zepa. After Zepa fell, B-1619 attempted to
illegally cross the border into Serbia. B-1619 and 8 of friends
constructed a raft and floated it across the Drina River.
Upon crossing into Serbian territory B-1619, while still wearing his
military uniform, was arrested by the Serbian police and sent back to
the nearest municipality on the Bosnian side, which was Visegrad.
B-1619 claimed that he was then mistreated by the local Serbs in
Visegrad.
B-1619 shed some interesting light on the situation around Zepa.
B-1619 said that the major combat started in the spring of 1992 when
his unit ambushed a JNA column who was bringing in food and
humanitarian assistance. According to B-1619 his unit killed 45 JNA
soldiers in that ambush.
B-1619’s unit was subordinated to Nasir Oric’s 28th Division which was
stationed in Srebrenica. According to B-1619 it was the UN’s
responsibility to demilitarize Srebrenica and Zepa. Obviously this is
something that didn’t happen.
According to B-1619 his unit in Zepa consisted of 1,200 men and
roughly 10% of them were underage children who had been mobilized.
B-1619 also said that his unit seized UNPROFOR weapons and escorted
UNPROFOR back to their base ahead of the combat activities in Zepa.
B-1619’s dad went to Serbia as a refugee along with a group consisting
of hundreds of other Muslim refugees. His father spent 7 months in
Serbia and then went on to the United States. B-1619’s dad was treated
well in Serbia, he was not mistreated in any way.
B-1619, after being returned to Bosnia, was put into prison and held
until he was exchanged on January 19, 1996. B-1619 told some
cock-and-bull story about how Gen. Mladic would get drunk and come to
the prison and mistreat him.
B-1619 said at first that he didn’t know who the drunk man was until
he introduced himself as Gen. Mladic. Later on B-1619 changed his
story and said that he knew who Mladic was all along because he had
seen him on TV.
At any rate it is quite improbable that Gen. Mladic had nothing better
to do than get drunk and harass Muslims at some prison, and according
to B-1619 this didn’t only happen once. B-1619 said that Mladic came
around several times.
B-1619 claimed not to know how about the number of weapons his unit
had or about the number of casualties that his unit suffered in the
fighting around Zepa.
The next witness was B-1401. B-1401 has previously testified at The
Hague “tribunal”. He testified as “Witness O” at the Radislav Krstic
“trial” on April 13, 2000.
B-1401 was 17 years old in July of 1995 when 15,000 military aged men
and boys from Srebrenica attempted to breakout of Srebrenica towards
Tuzla.
They formed a column at Jaglici, the column was mixed between soldiers
and civilians. The objective was for to breakthrough the Serbian lines
and escape to Tuzla.
During the course of the breakout the column was fired on by the
Bosnian Serb Army. B-1401 personally saw 500 men killed himself, and
he said that others began committing suicide.
B-1401 said that he surrendered to some soldiers whose unit he
couldn’t identify. He says that he was loaded onto a truck and
transported to a school and he claimed that people were killed at the
school.
Later he claims that he was taken from the school to a place where
executions were taking place. He didn’t know who was carrying out the
executions, or how many people were executed. He didn’t know how many
people were on the truck with him, and he didn’t know how many people
had been at the school with him.
B-1401 claims that he survived the execution and escaped with one
other man to B-H Army territory.
B-1401 told a sad story, but even if its true, it doesn’t have
anything to do with Slobodan Milosevic. There’s just no link. The
witness couldn’t identify the perpetrators of the crimes he was
alleging.
At the beginning of the day some administrative matters were
discussed, and we know for a fact now that portions of Wesley Clark’s
testimony were redacted. We don’t know how much has been cut, or what
the nature of the redacted testimony was, but portions of it have been
redacted. Mr. May announced that he had been informed by the registrar
that certain testimony was redacted.
At the end of the day the prosecutor introduced more 92-bis(A)
statements into “evidence.” These 92-bis(A) statements are treated as
evidence, but President Milosevic doesn’t have the opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses whose alleged statements are being used
against him and in most cases the witnesses are secret witnesses who
are identified only by pseudonyms.
1. On Criminal Clark's testimony:
1.A) THE PERFUMED PRINCE MAKES HIS DEBUT (WESLEY CLARK - DAY 1) -
December 15, 2003
1.B) WESLEY CLARK, A MAN IN LOVE WITH HIMSELF - December 16, 2003
2. UNDERAGE AND DRAFTED INTO THE B-H ARMY (Synopsis Dec. 17, 2003)
=== 1 ===
Almost full transcripts of the "testimony" can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm
Pictures can be seen at:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/draftWC.htm
--- 1.A ---
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121903.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: THE PERFUMED PRINCE MAKES HIS DEBUT
(WESLEY CLARK - DAY 1)
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 19, 2003
Retired American General Wesley Clark testified in front of The Hague
Tribunal on Monday and Tuesday. From the outset it was apparent that
his testimony would be stage-managed and restricted so as not to
embarrass the "perfumed prince" or his government.
At the outset President Milosevic objected to the terms of Clark's
testimony saying, "I don't quite understand the position of this
witness since my understanding was that he would be testifying in
closed session and that you described that as a temporarily closed
session, and then, in the meantime, representatives of the government
of his country may be able to review the transcript, to approve some
of it, to redact some of it possibly, and only then to release it to
the public. I am not aware of any legal court in the world delegating
its authority of this kind to any government. This would be the first
time for any such thing to happen. Of course, you consider yourself to
be a legal court."
It turned out that the U.S. Government had no real need to redact the
transcript. President Milosevic's ability to cross-examine Clark was
so radically limited that he couldn't ask any questions unless the
prosecution had already asked about the topic first. Essentially the
prosecution dictated the terms of the cross-examination, and the
so-called "trial chamber" enforced those terms.
Before Clark's testimony even started the so-called "Presiding Judge"
Richard May, expressed concern that Clark's witness statement was too
broad, and would therefore enable too wide-ranging of a
cross-examination by President Milosevic.
Mr. May also expressed concern that admitting Wesley Clark's book
would enable President Milosevic to ask questions about the contents
of the book. Therefore, it was decided that the book would not be
exhibited, with the stated objective being to limit President
Milosevic's cross-examination.
After the Examination-in-chief was concluded, Mr. May was very keen to
limit the cross-examination. The fist thing he said to President
Milosevic was "Mr. Milosevic, before you begin cross-examining, you
should know that there are parameters in this case beyond which you
cannot go. We've already made an order which restricts the scope of
cross-examination. I'm not going to go into the reasons for it again.
It is limited to the statement which the witness has given, which
means that you are restricted in a way that you are not restricted
with other witnesses, because then you're allowed to ask any relevant
matters. You're restricted in this case to the witness's evidence. So
you can give -- ask him questions, of course, about what he's said
here but not about other evidence. He's given no other evidence
against you apart from the matter which General Clark has dealt with
here. So your cross-examination in this case is limited."
"We have refused to admit the book. It's not part of the evidence. We
therefore will not allow some free-ranging cross-examination through
it, but you may, if you are entitled to do so, and that will be a
matter of relevance, you can, if you wish, ask General Clark about
passages of the book which are related to his evidence, and that
largely will be -- not entirely will be the matters which are already
underlined. So subject to those matters, of course you may conduct your
cross-examination, but you will be stopped if you go beyond those
particular bounds."
Wesley Clark's examination-in-chief was of no real value to the
prosecution. He had no important evidence to speak of. In fact he made
a better case against himself than he did against Milosevic.
On August 1, 1975 the Helsinki Final act
[http://www.hri.org/docs/Helsinki75.html%5d was signed by the U.S.
Government and also by Yugoslavia.
Signatories to the Helsinki final act are obliged under Sec. VI to
“refrain from any form of armed intervention or threat of such
intervention against another participating State,” and to “refrain
from direct or indirect assistance to terrorist activities, or to
subversive or other activities directed towards the violent overthrow
of the regime of another participating State.”
Section II of the Helsinki Final Act states that “the participating
States will refrain from any acts constituting a threat of force or
direct or indirect use of force against another participating State.
Likewise they will refrain from any manifestation of force for the
purpose of inducing another participating State to renounce the full
exercise of its sovereign rights. Likewise they will also refrain in
their mutual relations from any act of reprisal by force.”
“No such threat or use of force will be employed as a means of
settling disputes, or questions likely to give rise to disputes,
between them.”
During his examination-in-chief Clark explained that he met with
Milosevic several times in order to force him to withdraw Yugoslav
army and police forces from Kosovo. Clark says he told Milosevic that
if he didn’t remove the army and the police then NATO would attack
Yugoslavia.
I knew that Clark was evil, but I had no idea that he was so
incredibly stupid. He just confirmed to the world that he, Wesley
Clark, went to a sovereign state and told the head of state that
unless they removed their army and their police forces from their own
territory that they would be bombed, and as we know Yugoslavia was
bombed.
Wesley Clark quite clearly proved that he broke international law, but
he didn’t demonstrate that Milosevic did, his “evidence” was worthless
to the prosecution.
At one point Clark bragged to Mr. Nice that he told Milosevic, “NATO
is going to be asking – these [NATO] leaders are going to be asking
what is it that you [Milosevic] are trying to do to this country? You
forced professors to sign loyalty oaths, you have crushed democracy,
you have taken a vibrant economy, you've wrecked it. They're going to
be asking, what kind of a leader are you?"
First of all, what Clark said was completely untrue. Professors didn’t
have to sign any loyalty oaths to Milosevic. Not even professors who
support DOS allege such a stupid thing. The economy was wrecked by
sanctions imposed from outside, and Milosevic was elected in
multiparty elections.
Clark went on to explain to Mr. Nice that after he made that remark to
Milosevic then he didn’t make any more progress with him in the
“negotiations”. Will wonders never cease? Wesley Clark went to
Yugoslavia, met with the head of state, presented him with threats and
ultimatums, generally behaved like a belligerent jerk, hurled lies and
insults at him, and now he wonders how come he didn’t get anywhere? How
dumb can this guy be? The man seems to take pride in his own arrogance.
The only thing that Clark said, which even remotely incriminated
Milosevic was when he said that he asked Milosevic: "Mr. President,
you say you have so much influence over the Bosnian Serbs, but how is
it then, if you have such influence, that you allowed General Mladic
to kill all those people in Srebrenica?" Clark said that Milosevic
replied by saying, “Well, General Clark, I warned Mladic not to do
this, but he didn't listen to me.”
Of course the only alleged witness to this alleged conversation was
Joseph Kruzel, and he’s dead. But it defies belief that Milosevic
would tell someone like Wesley Clark something like that. Slobodan
Milosevic has never attributed any killings at Srebrenica to Mladic.
Slobodan Milosevic has consistently claimed that mercenaries, and not
the VRS, carried out killings. Secondly, he has consistently stated
that he fond out about Srebrenica after the fact, so how could he have
told Mladic not to do it ahead of time?
Because Kruzel is dead, we have Clark’s word against Milosevic’s word,
and Milosevic branded Clark’s claim as a blatant lie. I’m inclined to
agree with Milosevic here. I don’t believe for a second that Milosevic
said that. It conflicts with everything else he had been saying. I
find it very hard to believe that Milosevic would confide in Wesley
Clark and tell him something that he didn’t tell anybody else.
Wesley Clark spoke about the MUP and VJ’s actions in Kosovo, Mr. Nice
asked him to explain what his sources of information were and Clark
replied by saying, “I got this from both the news media and other
reliable sources.”
The news media, and some unnamed “reliable sources.” Well now I really
am impressed with the prosecution’s case! Mr. Nice got the former NATO
Supreme Allied Commander and the former Commander-in-Chief of the
United States European Command to testify on the basis of what he saw
in the media. Excelsior to you Mr. Nice! Words can’t express how
impressed I am with your case.
When the cross-examination did start, Mr. May limited it to two and a
half hours. As he explained to President Milosevic, ”two and a half
hours should be adequate to deal with the limited matters which the
witness has given in evidence.” In other words “Judge” May was saying,
“Why should we give you a bunch of time? We won’t let you ask him
anything anyway.”
The elephant in the room was of course Wesley Clark’s command over the
NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, and President Milosevic was
prohibited from asking him any questions about that.
Yes you read that right, Slobodan Milosevic was the president of
Yugoslavia, and while he was the president of Yugoslavia, Wesley Clark
conducted a war against Yugoslavia, and this “minor detail” was
something that President Milosevic was prohibited from asking
questions about.
Let’s get this perfectly clear President Milosevic asked the following
question, “Mr. May, just in order to clarify the basic attitude
towards me in relation to this witness, is it in dispute that General
Clark was in command of NATO during the war against Yugoslavia? And is
it disputed that that was his most important role in everything that
related to Yugoslavia? And is it in dispute that you're not allowing
me to ask him anything at all about that?”
Mr. May’s response was “That's right,” and so President Milosevic
asked him again. He said, “So I cannot ask him anything at all about
the war waged by NATO against Yugoslavia. Is that what you're saying?”
And May said, “Yes.”
At that point President Milosevic denounced the proceedings as a
farce, and then in order to prove President Milosevic right “judge”
May said, “I also restrict your comments too.”
The first substantive topic that Clark spoke about in
cross-examination was his meeting with Mladic regarding the Contact
Group Plan in 1994. For some reason Clark went out of his way to
describe Mladic as angry and belligerent, he said that the meeting was
unproductive because of Mladic’s alleged intransigence.
Pictures [http://www.srpskapolitika.com/veliki/mladic-clark.jpg%5d from
the meeting tell a different story. They show a smiling Clark, and a
happy looking Mladic wearing each other’s hats like a couple of buddies
out having a good time.
The Cross-examination was grinding and tedious. President Milosevic
was repeatedly prohibited from bringing up matters of key importance.
Milosevic attempted to bring up the fact that Wesley Clark admitted in
the November 17, 2003 issue of the New Yorker that NATO’s Kosovo war
was “technically illegal” because according to Clark, “The Russians
and the Chinese said they would both veto it. There was never a chance
that it would be authorized.”
I guess if Clark thinks that the NATO bombing was “technically
illegal” then that makes him technically a war criminal, because he
commanded it. Unfortunately, Milosevic couldn’t make that point
because his microphone was constantly being switched off by Mr. May.
Mr. May was behaving as if the U.S. Government had attached electrodes
to his testicles and would give him a shock if he allowed Milosevic to
even get a question related to the war out of his mouth. Mr. May was
unusually quick to switch off Milosevic’s microphone during Clark’s
so-called “testimony.”
During Clark’s examination-in-chief he boasted that he took Milosevic
aside and “warned him that if he didn't comply with the request of the
United Nations [SC RES 1199], that action would be taken against him
in the form of bombing.” The “request” Clark is referring to is the
withdrawal of Yugoslav security forces from Kosovo.
President Milosevic asked Clark if Resolution 1199 authorized the use
of force against Yugoslavia and all Clark would say was, “The content
of the Resolution is a matter of public record, and I was following
the instructions from NATO and from my government.”
Clark is right, it is a public document, and it turns out that
Resolution 1199 doesn’t authorize any bombing. Therefore, the
instructions issued to Clark by the U.S. Government and NATO
contradicted the resolution.
Furthermore Resolution 1199 simply demanded, “the withdrawal of
security units used for civilian repression.” Seeing as how no
Yugoslav army or police units were in Kosovo for the purpose of
repressing civilians Yugoslavia wasn’t obliged to withdraw any of its
security forces. All of Yugoslavia’s security forces were in Kosovo to
protect the civilians.
Clark was obviously interpreting Resolution 1199 to suit his own
purposes. I’m sure NATO was already planning its war and Clark was
just looking to get any resistance to a potential NATO ground invasion
out of Kosovo. Therefore, Clark was telling Yugoslavia to get its
forces out of Kosovo and he was using this vaguely worded part of the
resolution as his justification.
I’ll post a report on Day 2 of the Wesley Clark farce tomorrow.
--- 1.B ---
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121603.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: WESLEY CLARK, A MAN IN LOVE WITH HIMSELF
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 20, 2003 [Synopsis of December
16, 2003 proceedings]
As with day one of Clark’s “testimony”, much of day two was spent
discussing Slobodan Milosevic’s roll at the Dayton peace negotiations.
In the most cynical display I’ve seen, Wesley Clark was trying to use
Slobodan Milosevic’s leading roll in ending the bloodshed in Bosnia
against him. The essence of Clark’s testimony was Milosevic took the
leading roll in the negotiations; therefore he must have taken the
leading roll on the battlefield.
The fact of the matter was that NATO wouldn’t deal with the Bosnian
Serb leadership. As Clark himself explained, “they were indicted war
criminals, and so it wasn't our desire to speak to either Karadzic or
Mladic.”
Because the most senior Bosnian Serb leadership couldn’t attend the
negotiations, lest they be arrested, the remedy was to form a single
delegation joint delegation of Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska. The
delegation consisted of three members from Republika Srpska and three
from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and as he held the most
senior position among the delegates Slobodan Milosevic led the
delegation and was given the decisive vote. Without Slobodan Milosevic
there would have been no way to negotiate and end to the war.
The agreement to form the single delegation was reached on August 29,
1995 at the Yugoslav army residence in Dobanovci. Present at the
meeting were: The president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
Zoran Lilic; the President of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic; the
president of Montenegro, Momir Bulatovic; the president of the federal
government, Dr. Rade Kontic; federal Defence Minister Pavle Bulatovic;
and the Yugoslav Army General Chief of Staff, Colonel General Momcilo
Perisic. President of the Republic of Srpska, Dr. Radovan Karadzic;
vice-president Dr. Nikola Koljevic and Dr. Biljana Plavsic; president
of the Assembly of Republika Srpska, Momcilo Krajisnik; the president
of the Republika Srpska, Dusan Kozic; Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr.
Aleksa Buha; the Commander of the Main Staff of Republika Srpska
Colonel-General Ratko Mladic with Generals Zdravko Tolimir, Milan
Gvero, and Djordje Djukic.
Under the terms of the agreement reached by the Governments of
Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska:
<< The leadership of Republika Srpska is in agreement with the
complete coordination of its approach to the peace process with the
leadership of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the interests of
peace.
The leadership of Republika Srpska agrees that binding decisions for
the delegation in relation to the peace plan be made by the delegation
at a plenary session based on a majority of votes. In the event of an
equal number of votes, the vote of President Slobodan Milosevic would
be decisive. >>
Also present at the meeting were the patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox
Church, His Eminence Pavle and Bishop Irinej Bulovic, who bestowed
their blessings on the agreement.
So we can see that the single delegation came about on the basis of an
agreement between the government of Yugoslavia on the one hand and the
government of Republika Srpska on the other. The agreement was reached
to coordinate the approach rather than any kind of alchemistry on the
part of Milosevic.
The Republika Srpska leadership was locked out of the process by NATO
and so President Milosevic had to go to Dayton in their place, and he
went in their place only after he received their authorization.
He insisted on having this agreement and having the casting vote so
that there wouldn’t be a repeat of what happened with the Vance-Owen
plan.
President Milosevic worked for tirelessly for peace. He took the
leading roll at Dayton and this stupid “court” is now trying to hold
that against him.
Wesely Clark loves himself more than anybody I’ve ever seen. Slobodan
Milosevic asked him a simple question about a criticism leveled
against him by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Henry
Shelton. Shelton says, in the November 17, 2003 issue of the New
Yorker that “the reason he [Wesley Clark] came out of Europe early had
to do with integrity and character issues ... Wes won't get my vote”
Wesley Clark responded by saying “I want to, Your Honor, thoroughly
disabuse the accused of the idea that there was any reflection on my
character and integrity.” Then he proceeded to read out a 10 minute
long speech about what a great guy he is. By the time he finished I
was beginning to wonder if he would ever shut up.
I’m sure that after listening to Wesley Clark talking about what a
great guy Wesley Clark is for 10 minutes that Slobodan Milosevic was
quite disabused indeed.
All Clark had to say was that Shelton is a political opponent of his,
and was only saying bad things about him for political reasons, sort
of like what he was doing to Milosevic.
As if listening to him read a 10 minute long speech about how great he
is wasn’t enough, Wesley Clark procured a fax from Bill Clinton
calling him a great officer and calling Milosevic a liar.
Clinton calling Milosevic a liar that’s a good one; Bill Clinton the
man who was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, because he
lied to a grand-jury is calling Slobodan Milosevic a liar.
Of course, Clark couldn’t just hand the fax in to the “judges.” No, he
had to read the whole damn thing out, and we had to listen to him
going on again about what a great guy he is. It’s no wonder they call
him the perfumed prince.
Wesley Clark also made his views on the KLA known. He said “I don't
accept the definition of the KLA as a terrorist organization. I want
to state that for the record.”
Very well Mr. Clark, you are now on record saying that these happy KLA
members holding the severed Serbian heads in this photo aren’t
terrorists.
Wesley Clark also said that “NATO had no relationship with the KLA,
period.” Really? In this next photo we see the top NATO and KLA
leadership posing for a friendly group photo. Clark himself is the one
on the far right.
Slobodan Milosevic said, they looked like “[the] three Musketeers
where he [Clark] is like D'Artagnan with the leaders of these
terrorists”
It looks to me like, far from having no relationship, that NATO has a
very friendly relationship with the KLA. It also appears to me that
the KLA are terrorists. It's your choice, you can believe Wesley Clark
or you can believe your eyes.
All together Wesley Clark’s testimony was pretty worthless. There was
a lot of fanfare, but little substance. Clark really didn’t have
anything to say. Aside from what a wonderful guy he thinks he is.
Wesley Clark’s “testimony” proves beyond any doubt that this so-called
“trial” is a farce. The restrictions imposed on President Milosevic’s
cross-examination were ridiculous. The whole thing was ridiculous.
This was an embarrassment for the “tribunal” and it was an
embarrassment for the U.S. Government. They brought in this
high-profile witness with a lot of fan fare. It attracted global
attention and what did the world see? They saw a vainglorious jerk
hiding from difficult questions behind the “presiding judge’s”
skirts…um…I mean robes.
=== 2 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121703.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS - DECEMBER 17, 2003: UNDERAGE AND DRAFTED
INTO THE B-H ARMY
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - December 17, 2003
Two secret witnesses were heard at the “trial” of Slobodan Milosevic
today; B-1619, a Muslim from Zepa and B-1401 a Muslim from Srebrenica.
B-1619 was an underage member of the B-H Army who was trained in
Srebrenica and stationed in Zepa. After Zepa fell, B-1619 attempted to
illegally cross the border into Serbia. B-1619 and 8 of friends
constructed a raft and floated it across the Drina River.
Upon crossing into Serbian territory B-1619, while still wearing his
military uniform, was arrested by the Serbian police and sent back to
the nearest municipality on the Bosnian side, which was Visegrad.
B-1619 claimed that he was then mistreated by the local Serbs in
Visegrad.
B-1619 shed some interesting light on the situation around Zepa.
B-1619 said that the major combat started in the spring of 1992 when
his unit ambushed a JNA column who was bringing in food and
humanitarian assistance. According to B-1619 his unit killed 45 JNA
soldiers in that ambush.
B-1619’s unit was subordinated to Nasir Oric’s 28th Division which was
stationed in Srebrenica. According to B-1619 it was the UN’s
responsibility to demilitarize Srebrenica and Zepa. Obviously this is
something that didn’t happen.
According to B-1619 his unit in Zepa consisted of 1,200 men and
roughly 10% of them were underage children who had been mobilized.
B-1619 also said that his unit seized UNPROFOR weapons and escorted
UNPROFOR back to their base ahead of the combat activities in Zepa.
B-1619’s dad went to Serbia as a refugee along with a group consisting
of hundreds of other Muslim refugees. His father spent 7 months in
Serbia and then went on to the United States. B-1619’s dad was treated
well in Serbia, he was not mistreated in any way.
B-1619, after being returned to Bosnia, was put into prison and held
until he was exchanged on January 19, 1996. B-1619 told some
cock-and-bull story about how Gen. Mladic would get drunk and come to
the prison and mistreat him.
B-1619 said at first that he didn’t know who the drunk man was until
he introduced himself as Gen. Mladic. Later on B-1619 changed his
story and said that he knew who Mladic was all along because he had
seen him on TV.
At any rate it is quite improbable that Gen. Mladic had nothing better
to do than get drunk and harass Muslims at some prison, and according
to B-1619 this didn’t only happen once. B-1619 said that Mladic came
around several times.
B-1619 claimed not to know how about the number of weapons his unit
had or about the number of casualties that his unit suffered in the
fighting around Zepa.
The next witness was B-1401. B-1401 has previously testified at The
Hague “tribunal”. He testified as “Witness O” at the Radislav Krstic
“trial” on April 13, 2000.
B-1401 was 17 years old in July of 1995 when 15,000 military aged men
and boys from Srebrenica attempted to breakout of Srebrenica towards
Tuzla.
They formed a column at Jaglici, the column was mixed between soldiers
and civilians. The objective was for to breakthrough the Serbian lines
and escape to Tuzla.
During the course of the breakout the column was fired on by the
Bosnian Serb Army. B-1401 personally saw 500 men killed himself, and
he said that others began committing suicide.
B-1401 said that he surrendered to some soldiers whose unit he
couldn’t identify. He says that he was loaded onto a truck and
transported to a school and he claimed that people were killed at the
school.
Later he claims that he was taken from the school to a place where
executions were taking place. He didn’t know who was carrying out the
executions, or how many people were executed. He didn’t know how many
people were on the truck with him, and he didn’t know how many people
had been at the school with him.
B-1401 claims that he survived the execution and escaped with one
other man to B-H Army territory.
B-1401 told a sad story, but even if its true, it doesn’t have
anything to do with Slobodan Milosevic. There’s just no link. The
witness couldn’t identify the perpetrators of the crimes he was
alleging.
At the beginning of the day some administrative matters were
discussed, and we know for a fact now that portions of Wesley Clark’s
testimony were redacted. We don’t know how much has been cut, or what
the nature of the redacted testimony was, but portions of it have been
redacted. Mr. May announced that he had been informed by the registrar
that certain testimony was redacted.
At the end of the day the prosecutor introduced more 92-bis(A)
statements into “evidence.” These 92-bis(A) statements are treated as
evidence, but President Milosevic doesn’t have the opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses whose alleged statements are being used
against him and in most cases the witnesses are secret witnesses who
are identified only by pseudonyms.
da La Voce del G.A.MA.DI. - dicembre 2003
La guerra illegale
di Pasquale Vilardo
Un articolo di Guido Ambrosino su il Manifesto del 19 ottobre, "un
paesino fa guerra alla NATO" (*), ripropone il problema dell'illegalità
della guerra contro la ex Jugoslavia e la magistratura tedesca, se
ribadirà i principi del diritto internazionale sinora disattesi, può
davvero dare un contributo alle cause e ai processi in corso, in Italia
e in Europa.
C'é da dire infatti che il ricorso all' Autorità Giudiziaria, anche se
finora non ha prodotto risultati eclatanti, tuttavia è legittimo e lo
dimostrano gli interessanti risultati parziali sinora ottenuti.
Prendiamo ad esempio una causa civile analoga a quella in discussione a
Bonn: dinanzi al Tribunale Civile di Roma i parenti delle vittime del
bombardamento sulla Radio Televisione Serba del 23 aprile 1999 hanno
citato il Ministro della Difesa pro-tempore ed altre autorità per
ottenere la dichiarazione giudiziale di fatto illecito-reato e il
conseguente risarcimento dei danni.
Bene, la magistratura italiana ha negato la giurisdizione, considerando
gli illeciti della NATO e del governo italiano "atti politici
insindacabili" - provocando con ciò la reazione indignata di altri
settori della nostra magistratura e un ricorso pendente presso la Corte
Europea dei diritti dell'uomo di Strasburgo contro lo Stato Italiano
per "denegata giustizia".
La Corte di Strasburgo ha riconosciuto "non manifestamente infondato"
il ricorso e già in novembre potrebbe pronunciarsi. Ma la pronuncia
della magistratura civile italiana è in stridente contrasto con quanto
stabilito dalla magistratura penale italiana sugli stessi argomenti.
Allorché nel maggio 1999 centinaia di cittadini denunciarono il governo
italiano per l'illegalità dell' aggressione NATO alla ex Jugoslavia la
Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma richiese
l'archiviazione in quanto la giurisdizione della magistratura ordinaria
non poteva occuparsi di fatti "riferibili a interessi politici".
Il collegio per i reati ministeriali presso il i tribunale di Roma
invece disattende l'assunto della Procura e afferma in positivo la
giurisdizione della magistratura sui fatti denunciati, cioè
l'illegalità della guerra.
Successivamente la Procura Generale presso la Corte di Cassazione e la
Cassazione stessa riconoscono tale giurisdizione.
L'archiviazione disposta dal Tribunale dei Ministri è quindi avvenuta
non perché l'Autorità Giudiziaria Ordinaria non ha giurisdizione - come
pretendeva la Procura e come ha statuito la magistratura civile - ma
sul presupposto che il governo dell'epoca non aveva violato le leggi,
perché il nostro Parlamento aveva formalmente deliberato la guerra ai
sensi dell'art. 78 della Costituzione: sic!
Ognuno vede che non è stato così, come documentano resoconti
parlamentari e come testimoniano numerosi parlamentari anche di
Centro-destra oltre che di Centro- sinistra.
Allora, anche tale archiviazione può essere impugnata e, ai sensi dell'
art. 2 comma 2 della legge 5.6.89 n. 219, si può chiedere ala Procura
della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma nuove investigazioni per
accertare che il Parlamento non si pronunciò nel marzo 1999 ai sensi
dell' Art. 78 della Costituzione e quindi la richiesta di revoca
dell'archiviazione, per una pronuncia puntuale sull'illegalità di quei
tragici 78 giorni di bombardamento.
Come ognuno vede, le leggi ci sono, occorre però una reale volontà
politica di avvalersene, da parte della sinistra.
LA QUESTIONE DELL'URANIO IMPOVERITO
Questo discorso sulla possibilità di richiedere alla magistratura
ordinaria pronunce positive sugli illeciti di guerra é altresì evidente
nella questione dell'uranio impoverito, scontando però anche qui i
poteri forti interessati rendono il cammino giudiziario difficile: ma
difficile sì, non certo impossibile, né tanto meno illegittimo.
Anche qui, per anni autorità politiche e militari hanno addirittura
negato il problema, ma la tenacia delle vittime nel rivendicare i loro
diritti è stata più forte ed oggi, a livello europeo, sono numerosi i
procedimenti, anche in avanzato stato processuale.
E anche qui un input indubbiamente rilevante per i magistrati italiani
è stato dato dalla segnalazione, da parte dei difensori delle vittime,
che in altri paesi, come attualmente soprattutto in Francia, i
magistrati facevano sul serio.
Di più: un contributo certamente utile è venuto dai giornalisti
realmente indipendenti, sia della TV che della stampa, che
instancabilmente hanno dato voce alle vittime, ai loro difensori, agli
scienziati contro la guerra, costringendo l'Autorità Giudiziaria a
svolgere indagini, a non archiviare.
Così oggi a Torino e a Roma ci sono inchieste in avanzato stato di
indagine e ormai difficilmente archiviabili e a Cagliari vi è già una
richiesta di rinvio a giudizio.
Insomma il panorama giuridico, pur difficile nei suoi iter, è
confortante e non poteva non essere così, visto che le leggi contro il
"flagello della guerra" ci sono, di rango internazionale e
costituzionale soprattutto.
Ma decisivo è stato il fatto che la tenacia delle vittime nel
richiedere giustizia si è incontrata con la combattività dei difensori
legali, con la perizia degli scienziati contro la guerra, con
l'indipendenza di molti giornalisti.
Le c.d. "verità di stato" sono state puntualmente smentite - si veda ad
es. la triste sorte della Commissione Mandelli - e spiragli di
giustizia e di verità sono ormai aperti.
Se dalla Germania verranno ulteriori buone nuove sarà un altro passo
avanti.
(*) http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2910
(NOTA: l'articolo di Vilardo e' stato scritto prima che si svolgesse
l'udienza dello scorso 10 dicembre - vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3037
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3009 -
quando cioe' la magistratura tedesca ha dimostrato di essere succube
della violenza politica della NATO tanto quanto lo sono analoghe corti,
all'Aia ed in altri paesi, tra cui l'Italia. IS)
---
GAMADI telefono e fax: 06-7915200;
posta elettronica: gamadilavoce@...
indirizzo: Piazza L. Da Vinci, 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
La guerra illegale
di Pasquale Vilardo
Un articolo di Guido Ambrosino su il Manifesto del 19 ottobre, "un
paesino fa guerra alla NATO" (*), ripropone il problema dell'illegalità
della guerra contro la ex Jugoslavia e la magistratura tedesca, se
ribadirà i principi del diritto internazionale sinora disattesi, può
davvero dare un contributo alle cause e ai processi in corso, in Italia
e in Europa.
C'é da dire infatti che il ricorso all' Autorità Giudiziaria, anche se
finora non ha prodotto risultati eclatanti, tuttavia è legittimo e lo
dimostrano gli interessanti risultati parziali sinora ottenuti.
Prendiamo ad esempio una causa civile analoga a quella in discussione a
Bonn: dinanzi al Tribunale Civile di Roma i parenti delle vittime del
bombardamento sulla Radio Televisione Serba del 23 aprile 1999 hanno
citato il Ministro della Difesa pro-tempore ed altre autorità per
ottenere la dichiarazione giudiziale di fatto illecito-reato e il
conseguente risarcimento dei danni.
Bene, la magistratura italiana ha negato la giurisdizione, considerando
gli illeciti della NATO e del governo italiano "atti politici
insindacabili" - provocando con ciò la reazione indignata di altri
settori della nostra magistratura e un ricorso pendente presso la Corte
Europea dei diritti dell'uomo di Strasburgo contro lo Stato Italiano
per "denegata giustizia".
La Corte di Strasburgo ha riconosciuto "non manifestamente infondato"
il ricorso e già in novembre potrebbe pronunciarsi. Ma la pronuncia
della magistratura civile italiana è in stridente contrasto con quanto
stabilito dalla magistratura penale italiana sugli stessi argomenti.
Allorché nel maggio 1999 centinaia di cittadini denunciarono il governo
italiano per l'illegalità dell' aggressione NATO alla ex Jugoslavia la
Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma richiese
l'archiviazione in quanto la giurisdizione della magistratura ordinaria
non poteva occuparsi di fatti "riferibili a interessi politici".
Il collegio per i reati ministeriali presso il i tribunale di Roma
invece disattende l'assunto della Procura e afferma in positivo la
giurisdizione della magistratura sui fatti denunciati, cioè
l'illegalità della guerra.
Successivamente la Procura Generale presso la Corte di Cassazione e la
Cassazione stessa riconoscono tale giurisdizione.
L'archiviazione disposta dal Tribunale dei Ministri è quindi avvenuta
non perché l'Autorità Giudiziaria Ordinaria non ha giurisdizione - come
pretendeva la Procura e come ha statuito la magistratura civile - ma
sul presupposto che il governo dell'epoca non aveva violato le leggi,
perché il nostro Parlamento aveva formalmente deliberato la guerra ai
sensi dell'art. 78 della Costituzione: sic!
Ognuno vede che non è stato così, come documentano resoconti
parlamentari e come testimoniano numerosi parlamentari anche di
Centro-destra oltre che di Centro- sinistra.
Allora, anche tale archiviazione può essere impugnata e, ai sensi dell'
art. 2 comma 2 della legge 5.6.89 n. 219, si può chiedere ala Procura
della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma nuove investigazioni per
accertare che il Parlamento non si pronunciò nel marzo 1999 ai sensi
dell' Art. 78 della Costituzione e quindi la richiesta di revoca
dell'archiviazione, per una pronuncia puntuale sull'illegalità di quei
tragici 78 giorni di bombardamento.
Come ognuno vede, le leggi ci sono, occorre però una reale volontà
politica di avvalersene, da parte della sinistra.
LA QUESTIONE DELL'URANIO IMPOVERITO
Questo discorso sulla possibilità di richiedere alla magistratura
ordinaria pronunce positive sugli illeciti di guerra é altresì evidente
nella questione dell'uranio impoverito, scontando però anche qui i
poteri forti interessati rendono il cammino giudiziario difficile: ma
difficile sì, non certo impossibile, né tanto meno illegittimo.
Anche qui, per anni autorità politiche e militari hanno addirittura
negato il problema, ma la tenacia delle vittime nel rivendicare i loro
diritti è stata più forte ed oggi, a livello europeo, sono numerosi i
procedimenti, anche in avanzato stato processuale.
E anche qui un input indubbiamente rilevante per i magistrati italiani
è stato dato dalla segnalazione, da parte dei difensori delle vittime,
che in altri paesi, come attualmente soprattutto in Francia, i
magistrati facevano sul serio.
Di più: un contributo certamente utile è venuto dai giornalisti
realmente indipendenti, sia della TV che della stampa, che
instancabilmente hanno dato voce alle vittime, ai loro difensori, agli
scienziati contro la guerra, costringendo l'Autorità Giudiziaria a
svolgere indagini, a non archiviare.
Così oggi a Torino e a Roma ci sono inchieste in avanzato stato di
indagine e ormai difficilmente archiviabili e a Cagliari vi è già una
richiesta di rinvio a giudizio.
Insomma il panorama giuridico, pur difficile nei suoi iter, è
confortante e non poteva non essere così, visto che le leggi contro il
"flagello della guerra" ci sono, di rango internazionale e
costituzionale soprattutto.
Ma decisivo è stato il fatto che la tenacia delle vittime nel
richiedere giustizia si è incontrata con la combattività dei difensori
legali, con la perizia degli scienziati contro la guerra, con
l'indipendenza di molti giornalisti.
Le c.d. "verità di stato" sono state puntualmente smentite - si veda ad
es. la triste sorte della Commissione Mandelli - e spiragli di
giustizia e di verità sono ormai aperti.
Se dalla Germania verranno ulteriori buone nuove sarà un altro passo
avanti.
(*) http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2910
(NOTA: l'articolo di Vilardo e' stato scritto prima che si svolgesse
l'udienza dello scorso 10 dicembre - vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3037
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3009 -
quando cioe' la magistratura tedesca ha dimostrato di essere succube
della violenza politica della NATO tanto quanto lo sono analoghe corti,
all'Aia ed in altri paesi, tra cui l'Italia. IS)
---
GAMADI telefono e fax: 06-7915200;
posta elettronica: gamadilavoce@...
indirizzo: Piazza L. Da Vinci, 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Gio 18 Dic 2003 16:06:35 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Transcript of the "testimony" of war criminal W.Clark
Almost full transcripts of the war between lie and truth - criminals vs.
invinsible President Milosevic can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm
The pictures can be seen at:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/draftWC.htm
Airing and spreading of the comments is most welcome!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Lun 22 Dic 2003 23:34:29 Europe/Rome
A: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Excerpts From ICTY Transcripts...
A. War criminal Wesley Clark testifies at Hague
B. Wesley Clark, War Criminal: Excerpts From ICTY Transcripts
--- A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/hague1225.php
War criminal Wesley Clark testifies at Hague
By John Catalinotto
Ex-NATO commander and current U.S. presidential candidate Gen. Wesley
Clark began testifying Dec. 15 at the trial of former Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague,
Netherlands.
Outside the courtroom of the Inter national Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia, a group of demonstrators protested both Clark's
appearance and the court's plans to keep his testimony secret, at least
until Dec. 19. U.S. authorities will be allowed to censor any of the
testimony they consider endangering U.S. "national interests" if made
public.
Two of the protesters held a banner reading, "Yankee kangaroo court
secretly fears the truth."
At a news conference organized by the International Committee for the
Defense of Slobodan Milosevic across from the court, Canadian attorney
Tiphaine Dickson pointed out what lay behind the court's decision to
keep the testimony secret. "Any doubt over the political nature of the
ICTY has been erased after the judge let it be known that they accepted
the conditions the U.S. regime demanded of them."
Many lawyers and law professors have pointed out this court's political
nature, and its illegal setup by the United Nations Security Council
under U.S. pressure. Among the ICTY's critics have been former U.S.
Attorney General Ramsey Clark and Canadian attorney Chris Black.
The court only hears alleged crimes of Yugoslavs. It refuses to hear
any charges brought against U.S. or other NATO military or political
leaders.
Though he poses as a "peace candidate," Gen. Wesley Clark directed the
aggressive 78-day U.S.-NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and admits
responsibility for choosing civilian targets in Serbia during that
bombing campaign.
At least three initiatives recognized Clark's responsibility for these
crimes by naming him along with other NATO political and military
leaders in war crimes indictments.
The three included a war-crimes case in a Belgrade, Yugoslavia, court
that found him and the other leaders guilty on Sept. 22, 2000; a
request, drafted in 1999 by Toronto law professors Michael Mandel and
David Jacobs, that the prosecutor for the ICTY investigate and indict
Gen. Clark and others for war crimes; and a June 10, 2000, People's
Tribunal organized by the International Action Center and others that
found Clark and others guilty of war crimes.
In another repressive move, the ICTY cut President Slobodan Milosevic
off from contact with the public, using as an excuse his candidacy in
the Dec. 28 national elections in Serbia. The Socialist Party of Serbia
chose Milosevic to lead its ticket because the former president has
gained in popularity by defending himself and his country expertly and
with energy before the ICTY.
Reprinted from the Dec. 25, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via email: ww@.... Subscribe
wwnews-on@.... Unsubscribe wwnews-off@.... Support
independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
--- B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Clark, War Criminal: Excerpts From ICTY Transcripts
(from: Rick Rozoff)
[Note: A. is Wesley Clark, Q. is Slobodan Milosevic]
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm
Monday, 15 December 2003
A. [On October 20, 1998] I asked him to step aside, I
spoke to him one-on-one, and I warned
Page 30387
1 him that if he didn't comply with the request of the
United Nations, that
2 action would be taken against him in the form of
bombing.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
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
Page 30418
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------11
Q. At that meeting, you presented a plan to me. You
said that you
12 were leaving already on the following day and that
you would be talking to
13 the leadership in Sarajevo headed by Izetbegovic;
is that right?
14 A. Your Honour, that is correct.
15 Q. Do you remember that I suggested to you and that
I cautioned you
16 not to go, as you had intended to go, via Mount
Igman because there isn't
17 a proper road there? There's only a footpath there
basically. It's very
18 dangerous. My suggestion to you was that you should
take the normal road.
19 Do you remember that?
20 A. Your Honour, I don't remember all the ins and
outs of this
21 dialogue. What I do remember is that we had asked
the accused to assure
22 that we could get through on the normal road, that
we wouldn't be stopped
23 by checkpoints and other things. And I do recall
that the accused was
24 able to contact immediately, I believe it was
General Mladic, at least
25 that's the impression that we were given, that I
took from the meeting,
Page 30425
1 and he came back and said that he could not ensure
that we could have an
2 unrestricted passage in at that time on the normal
routes.
3 Q. General Clark, it's exactly the other way around.
I'm going to
4 remind you. First of all, I'm not the one who went
out in order to get
5 into contact with anyone. It's my chef de cabinet,
Goran Milinovic, who
6 went out. I never left the room; I went on talking
to you. Do you
7 remember that?
8 A. Your Honour, I don't remember the specific
details of who left the
9 room or who didn't at that point.
10 Q. All right, General Clark. How come you don't
remember that Goran
11 Milinovic brought a fax containing written
guarantees from General Mladic
12 that you would not be stopped anywhere and that you
can pass along the
13 normal route? That is what we discussed for a long
time, because he came
14 back a few times in order to establish the exact
wording of this guarantee
15 so that it would be absolutely certain that nobody
would stop you, because
16 Holbrooke explained that it would be a great shame
for the delegation if
17 anyone stopped them anywhere. I assume you should
remember that. It was
18 the first meeting. Is that right or is that not
right?
19 A. Your Honour, I don't have any recollection of
this specifically.
20 I do remember that there was discussion about the
route and that we were
21 unable to get satisfactory guarantees that we could
go through it and that
22 that's subsequently why we decided we would go the
Mount Igman route. I
23 don't have any recollection of the details other
than that there was some
24 conversation with Mladic. That is to say that there
was a report that
25 someone had had a conversation with Mladic. We
didn't see that. We
Page 30426
1 stayed in the room. Who might have had that
conversation and what was
2 carried back and forth and so forth, I don't recall.
3 Q. Don't you remember that you were given this
guarantee into your
4 very own hands in writing that you would not be
stopped anywhere and that
5 Holbrooke refused this out of his very own vanity
and that's why four of
6 your men got killed on Mount Igman in the accident
because the APC
7 tumbled? You cannot remember that, General Clark?
Four of your fellow
8 members of the delegation got killed then because of
your vanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm
Tuesday December 16, 2003
6 Q. Very well, General Clark. That's fine. Since in
your
7 examination-in-chief you quoted me as having told
you that you were a war
8 criminal, am I quoting what you've said, General
Clark, correctly?
9 A. I recall your saying that I would be the war
criminal or that I
10 was a war criminal, yes. That was in the meeting
that we had in Beli Dvor
11 in January of 1999.
12 Q. That is quite true that I said that you would be
a war criminal if
13 you attacked Yugoslavia. That is quite true. I said
to you, "You will be
14 a war criminal if you attack Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia
is a sovereign state
15 and you have no right to intervene militarily in
Yugoslavia." Is that
16 right, General Clark?
17 A. Your Honour, I don't recall all of the
qualifications. I recall
18 the accused becoming very angry, red in the face,
and making accusations.
19 That's what I recall, and that's what I testified
to.
20 Q. So you were heralding a NATO bombardment, and
you said -- and I
21 said that you did not have the right to bomb a
sovereign state, and that
22 if you did that you would be a war criminal. Is
that right, General
23 Clark?
24 JUDGE MAY: The witness has answered the question.
There's no
25 need to repeat it.
Page 30453
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you think that you are a war criminal, General
Clark?
4 JUDGE MAY: That's not a proper question.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
6 If it's not a proper question, then I'm going to put
some other
7 questions.
8 Could you put this photograph on the ELMO.
9 JUDGE MAY: What is the photograph about? What is it
of?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The photograph
depicts General Clark
11 together with Hashim Thaci, Agim Ceku, General
Jackson, and Kouchner.
12 They're like the Musketeers with their hands all
together.
13 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't arise from your examination
-- or the
14 examination-in-chief of the witness or his
statement.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, during the
16 examination-in-chief the witness said, when quoting
me, and I confirmed
17 that, that I said to him that he would be a war
criminal if he attacked
18 Yugoslavia. I wish to show him proof of the fact
that what I said to him
19 was correct. So I have the right --
20 JUDGE MAY: You can ask him about the conversation
because that is
21 something which the witness dealt with in chief and
in his statement.
22 You've asked him about the conversation. You've got
the answer. The
23 substance of your allegations, such as they are, is
neither here nor
24 there. All we are concerned with is the fact that
you made these
25 allegations, if there's any significance in it.
Page 30454
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --
2 JUDGE MAY: Don't waste your time arguing about these
matters.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, do I not have
the right to
4 put a question to him in relation to what he himself
stated, that I had
5 said to him that he would be a war criminal? Don't I
have the right to
6 ask him about the consequences of what he did
afterwards?
7 JUDGE MAY: No, and you've heard the reasons. You
know how far
8 you're allowed to go and how far you aren't, and
this goes beyond it. If
9 it's a way to try and get round the ruling, which I
suspect it is, it will
10 not be successful. The witness has answered the
question. He said you
11 did make that allegation, for what it's worth, but
doesn't remember what
12 the qualifications were. Now, we can't take it any
further. All you can
13 ask him about is the conversation itself.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, so I can ask him
about the
15 conversation but I cannot ask him about the content
and meaning of that
16 conversation? Is that what you're trying to say?
17 JUDGE MAY: That's right. That's right. Particularly
these sort
18 of allegations that you're anxious to pursue.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's the
point, Mr. May.
20 This entire farce serves that purpose, to cover up
the crime committed
21 against Yugoslavia by --
22 JUDGE MAY: No, we don't want political speeches
now. We're far
23 too advanced in this trial to listen to this.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. All right. General Clark, do you think that in
view of your
Page 30455
1 military training and education, the high position
you held in the army of
2 the United States and in NATO, that the killing of
civilians, the bombing
3 of --
4 JUDGE MAY: Now, you know quite well that this is not
the sort of
5 question the witness is dealing with. We've told you
before you were
6 asking questions which you were perfectly permitted
to ask before the
7 adjournment. I suggest you return to that.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So you are not
allowing me to put a
9 single question in relation to the crimes that this
witness committed
10 against my country?
11 JUDGE MAY: You know quite well that these sort of
questions are
12 not permitted. These sort of allegations which you
make are not matters
13 which can be debated now, or indeed at any time
probably in this trial,
14 unless you show the relevance of it, but it's
certainly not relevant to
15 these -- to this evidence. This kind of allegation
does not assist
16 anybody.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Since
you've said just
18 now, Mr. May, that this cannot be discussed here, I
have here with me the
19 final report that a commission established to look
into the NATO campaign
20 against Yugoslavia, and this commission worked for
the Prosecution --
21 JUDGE MAY: No. You're wasting your own time. It's
very limited.
22 You know quite well what your questioning is
limited to. You must return
23 to it or this cross-examination will stop. It's a
matter for you whether
24 you want the cross-examination to stop or not. Now,
you will go back to
25 what the witness gave evidence about in chief or
this cross-examination
Page 30456
1 will be brought to an end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
25 Q. You mentioned, General Clark, the KLA in several
sections, in
Page 30500
1 several paragraphs, even in this latest statement of
yours. You talk
2 about their regrouping, you talk about operations
against the KLA, you
3 talk about the existence of the KLA, and so on.
4 You mentioned in your statement that I had said to
you that these
5 were murderers, rapists, plunderers, arsonists, that
these people were
6 terrorists. Do you remember that?
7 JUDGE MAY: Is this the reference now - let's make
sure we have
8 the reference right - to the conversation in October
1998? It's
9 paragraphs --
10 JUDGE KWON: 28.
11 JUDGE MAY: 28. That's the conversation, is it?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That paragraph and
other paragraphs.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. So I believe it is not in dispute that I said to
you, General
15 Clark, that these were terrorists, murderers,
rapists, killers of their
16 own kind. Is that right or is that not right? Was
that clear or was that
17 not clear?
18 A. You did say that to me in October of 1998, and
that is the phrase
19 you used. I remember you using it in English,
"murderers, rapists, and
20 killers of their own kind."
21 Q. And terrorists; right? Terrorists first and
foremost.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, please put this
picture on the
23 ELMO. These are men in KLA uniforms, and I hope
that you will recognise
24 the patch on the sleeve, the KLA patch. It can be
seen on the left arm.
25 So there is no doubt that this is the KLA. We see
this too.
Page 30501
1 JUDGE MAY: That is unnecessary. Remove that picture,
please.
2 This is nothing to do with the evidence. Return the
picture, please, to
3 the accused.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, these men in
KLA uniforms,
5 I mean, this man is holding two Serb heads that had
been cut off. Is that
6 confirmation? I mean, are these allies of General
Clark's infantry in
7 Kosovo?
........
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The general -- well,
I mean the
21 general is speaking in general terms about the KLA,
and you did not allow
22 me to show a picture yesterday of the three
Musketeers where he is like
23 D'Artagnan with the leaders of these terrorists.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. General, you actually commanded these
formations, these units that
Page 30503
1 cut off Serb heads.
..........
Q) You say in paragraph 28: "We know how to handle
these Albanians,
21 these murderers, these rapists, these killers of
their own kind. We have
22 taken care of them before." And you talk about
1946.
23 General, obviously you do not know history, the
history of the
24 Second World War. Do you know that in this context
I did not speak to you
25 about this at all? I'm going to remind you. I was
saying that many
Page 30504
1 members of Hitler's army who were Albanians and who
had been crushed spent
2 all of two years after the war in the mountains of
Kosovo, notably in
3 Drenica, and they were killing people, and that the
Yugoslav army spent
4 all of two years with them in Kosovo finishing off
the Second World War.
5 They were members of Hitler's units that remained in
the hills up there,
6 and the war went on for two more years over there in
Kosovo. Truth to
7 tell, it was a low-intensity conflict.
............
8 Q. General Clark, isn't it clear that the reference
here is not to
9 Albanians but to terrorists who that year had killed
more Albanians than
10 Serbs, as a matter of fact? These were terrorists
and killers towards
11 which every country, every nation is entitled to
take measures when
12 dealing with terrorists, killers, rapists,
torturists, slaughterers. That
13 was the reference, and not to Albanians. I never
used the name of a
14 people to link it to killers. Killers are killers.
Terrorists are
15 terrorists, regardless of what nation they may
belong to.
16 In this case, we were talking about terrorists and
killers, and in
17 1946 --
...............
19 And secondly, General, you certainly must know that
it was the
20 German intelligence service, in fact, that worked
on the formation of
21 terrorist groups and the equipping of the KLA. As
NATO commander, you
22 must have had such intelligence information.
.................
. Are you aware of the fact that after that,
23 after that October agreement, there were 470
terrorist attacks and 22
24 violations of the border between October and
December? This is contained
25 in a letter addressed by our Foreign Minister
Zivadin Jovanovic to Kofi
Page 30514
1 Annan in December 1998, in which he says that 1.854
terrorist attacks took
2 place, that 244 persons were killed, 566 wounded,
and after the signing of
3 the agreement, 470 terrorist attacks from the end of
October up until
4 December. Are you aware of that?
.................
23 You said a short while ago that you wanted to have
something
24 struck from the record. You wanted to say, as a
matter of fact, for the
25 record that the KLA was not a terrorist
organisation. Isn't that right,
Page 30530
1 General Clark?
2 A. Your Honour, I do not consider the KLA a
terrorist organisation.
3 Q. All right. Tell me, then, who was it then in 1998
that carried
4 out these 1.854 terrorist attacks, having killed
hundreds of people,
5 having wounded hundreds of people, civilians,
policemen, soldiers? Who
6 did that then in 1998 if not terrorists? Who could
have done it?
7 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop these rhetorical
questions. What is
8 the question?
.......................
3 Q. General Clark, since you claim that these
individuals who carried
4 out these acts of terrorism are not terrorists,
although several
5 resolutions of the Security Council refer to
terrorism in Kosovo, you
6 nevertheless claim that they are not terrorists.
7 Please answer a question: Is your election campaign
financed by
8 Albanian circles including the KLA?
...................
24 Q. You caused a humanitarian catastrophe, General
Clark. You didn't
25 save anyone. And since you were the NATO commander,
I assume that you
Page 30538
1 know that the Helsinki final act explicitly
authorises states to fight
2 against terrorism in their own territory and that no
other state has the
3 right to stop it or prevent it from doing that. You
interfered in this
4 conflict and you took the side of the terrorists,
General Clark. Is that
5 right or is that not right?
..................
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should first like
to refer to what
22 Mr. Nice has said, that apparently they're
investigating all crimes. If
23 they are investigating all crimes, then you have
first of all the
24 photograph of Clark, Hashim Thaci, Ceku and all the
others who were in
25 command of those crimes. As for the other
photographs that I showed, I
Page 30585
1 have the name of the person holding those heads and
the names of the Serbs
2 who were beheaded. And the photographs that I wanted
to show him, because
3 it was his allies that he is keeping company with
who did this.
4 Unfortunately, you are not investigating all crimes.
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
email: icdsm-italia@...
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
Data: Gio 18 Dic 2003 16:06:35 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Transcript of the "testimony" of war criminal W.Clark
Almost full transcripts of the war between lie and truth - criminals vs.
invinsible President Milosevic can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm
The pictures can be seen at:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/draftWC.htm
Airing and spreading of the comments is most welcome!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Lun 22 Dic 2003 23:34:29 Europe/Rome
A: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Excerpts From ICTY Transcripts...
A. War criminal Wesley Clark testifies at Hague
B. Wesley Clark, War Criminal: Excerpts From ICTY Transcripts
--- A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/hague1225.php
War criminal Wesley Clark testifies at Hague
By John Catalinotto
Ex-NATO commander and current U.S. presidential candidate Gen. Wesley
Clark began testifying Dec. 15 at the trial of former Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague,
Netherlands.
Outside the courtroom of the Inter national Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia, a group of demonstrators protested both Clark's
appearance and the court's plans to keep his testimony secret, at least
until Dec. 19. U.S. authorities will be allowed to censor any of the
testimony they consider endangering U.S. "national interests" if made
public.
Two of the protesters held a banner reading, "Yankee kangaroo court
secretly fears the truth."
At a news conference organized by the International Committee for the
Defense of Slobodan Milosevic across from the court, Canadian attorney
Tiphaine Dickson pointed out what lay behind the court's decision to
keep the testimony secret. "Any doubt over the political nature of the
ICTY has been erased after the judge let it be known that they accepted
the conditions the U.S. regime demanded of them."
Many lawyers and law professors have pointed out this court's political
nature, and its illegal setup by the United Nations Security Council
under U.S. pressure. Among the ICTY's critics have been former U.S.
Attorney General Ramsey Clark and Canadian attorney Chris Black.
The court only hears alleged crimes of Yugoslavs. It refuses to hear
any charges brought against U.S. or other NATO military or political
leaders.
Though he poses as a "peace candidate," Gen. Wesley Clark directed the
aggressive 78-day U.S.-NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and admits
responsibility for choosing civilian targets in Serbia during that
bombing campaign.
At least three initiatives recognized Clark's responsibility for these
crimes by naming him along with other NATO political and military
leaders in war crimes indictments.
The three included a war-crimes case in a Belgrade, Yugoslavia, court
that found him and the other leaders guilty on Sept. 22, 2000; a
request, drafted in 1999 by Toronto law professors Michael Mandel and
David Jacobs, that the prosecutor for the ICTY investigate and indict
Gen. Clark and others for war crimes; and a June 10, 2000, People's
Tribunal organized by the International Action Center and others that
found Clark and others guilty of war crimes.
In another repressive move, the ICTY cut President Slobodan Milosevic
off from contact with the public, using as an excuse his candidacy in
the Dec. 28 national elections in Serbia. The Socialist Party of Serbia
chose Milosevic to lead its ticket because the former president has
gained in popularity by defending himself and his country expertly and
with energy before the ICTY.
Reprinted from the Dec. 25, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via email: ww@.... Subscribe
wwnews-on@.... Unsubscribe wwnews-off@.... Support
independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
--- B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Clark, War Criminal: Excerpts From ICTY Transcripts
(from: Rick Rozoff)
[Note: A. is Wesley Clark, Q. is Slobodan Milosevic]
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm
Monday, 15 December 2003
A. [On October 20, 1998] I asked him to step aside, I
spoke to him one-on-one, and I warned
Page 30387
1 him that if he didn't comply with the request of the
United Nations, that
2 action would be taken against him in the form of
bombing.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
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
Page 30418
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------11
Q. At that meeting, you presented a plan to me. You
said that you
12 were leaving already on the following day and that
you would be talking to
13 the leadership in Sarajevo headed by Izetbegovic;
is that right?
14 A. Your Honour, that is correct.
15 Q. Do you remember that I suggested to you and that
I cautioned you
16 not to go, as you had intended to go, via Mount
Igman because there isn't
17 a proper road there? There's only a footpath there
basically. It's very
18 dangerous. My suggestion to you was that you should
take the normal road.
19 Do you remember that?
20 A. Your Honour, I don't remember all the ins and
outs of this
21 dialogue. What I do remember is that we had asked
the accused to assure
22 that we could get through on the normal road, that
we wouldn't be stopped
23 by checkpoints and other things. And I do recall
that the accused was
24 able to contact immediately, I believe it was
General Mladic, at least
25 that's the impression that we were given, that I
took from the meeting,
Page 30425
1 and he came back and said that he could not ensure
that we could have an
2 unrestricted passage in at that time on the normal
routes.
3 Q. General Clark, it's exactly the other way around.
I'm going to
4 remind you. First of all, I'm not the one who went
out in order to get
5 into contact with anyone. It's my chef de cabinet,
Goran Milinovic, who
6 went out. I never left the room; I went on talking
to you. Do you
7 remember that?
8 A. Your Honour, I don't remember the specific
details of who left the
9 room or who didn't at that point.
10 Q. All right, General Clark. How come you don't
remember that Goran
11 Milinovic brought a fax containing written
guarantees from General Mladic
12 that you would not be stopped anywhere and that you
can pass along the
13 normal route? That is what we discussed for a long
time, because he came
14 back a few times in order to establish the exact
wording of this guarantee
15 so that it would be absolutely certain that nobody
would stop you, because
16 Holbrooke explained that it would be a great shame
for the delegation if
17 anyone stopped them anywhere. I assume you should
remember that. It was
18 the first meeting. Is that right or is that not
right?
19 A. Your Honour, I don't have any recollection of
this specifically.
20 I do remember that there was discussion about the
route and that we were
21 unable to get satisfactory guarantees that we could
go through it and that
22 that's subsequently why we decided we would go the
Mount Igman route. I
23 don't have any recollection of the details other
than that there was some
24 conversation with Mladic. That is to say that there
was a report that
25 someone had had a conversation with Mladic. We
didn't see that. We
Page 30426
1 stayed in the room. Who might have had that
conversation and what was
2 carried back and forth and so forth, I don't recall.
3 Q. Don't you remember that you were given this
guarantee into your
4 very own hands in writing that you would not be
stopped anywhere and that
5 Holbrooke refused this out of his very own vanity
and that's why four of
6 your men got killed on Mount Igman in the accident
because the APC
7 tumbled? You cannot remember that, General Clark?
Four of your fellow
8 members of the delegation got killed then because of
your vanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm
Tuesday December 16, 2003
6 Q. Very well, General Clark. That's fine. Since in
your
7 examination-in-chief you quoted me as having told
you that you were a war
8 criminal, am I quoting what you've said, General
Clark, correctly?
9 A. I recall your saying that I would be the war
criminal or that I
10 was a war criminal, yes. That was in the meeting
that we had in Beli Dvor
11 in January of 1999.
12 Q. That is quite true that I said that you would be
a war criminal if
13 you attacked Yugoslavia. That is quite true. I said
to you, "You will be
14 a war criminal if you attack Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia
is a sovereign state
15 and you have no right to intervene militarily in
Yugoslavia." Is that
16 right, General Clark?
17 A. Your Honour, I don't recall all of the
qualifications. I recall
18 the accused becoming very angry, red in the face,
and making accusations.
19 That's what I recall, and that's what I testified
to.
20 Q. So you were heralding a NATO bombardment, and
you said -- and I
21 said that you did not have the right to bomb a
sovereign state, and that
22 if you did that you would be a war criminal. Is
that right, General
23 Clark?
24 JUDGE MAY: The witness has answered the question.
There's no
25 need to repeat it.
Page 30453
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you think that you are a war criminal, General
Clark?
4 JUDGE MAY: That's not a proper question.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
6 If it's not a proper question, then I'm going to put
some other
7 questions.
8 Could you put this photograph on the ELMO.
9 JUDGE MAY: What is the photograph about? What is it
of?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The photograph
depicts General Clark
11 together with Hashim Thaci, Agim Ceku, General
Jackson, and Kouchner.
12 They're like the Musketeers with their hands all
together.
13 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't arise from your examination
-- or the
14 examination-in-chief of the witness or his
statement.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, during the
16 examination-in-chief the witness said, when quoting
me, and I confirmed
17 that, that I said to him that he would be a war
criminal if he attacked
18 Yugoslavia. I wish to show him proof of the fact
that what I said to him
19 was correct. So I have the right --
20 JUDGE MAY: You can ask him about the conversation
because that is
21 something which the witness dealt with in chief and
in his statement.
22 You've asked him about the conversation. You've got
the answer. The
23 substance of your allegations, such as they are, is
neither here nor
24 there. All we are concerned with is the fact that
you made these
25 allegations, if there's any significance in it.
Page 30454
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May --
2 JUDGE MAY: Don't waste your time arguing about these
matters.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, do I not have
the right to
4 put a question to him in relation to what he himself
stated, that I had
5 said to him that he would be a war criminal? Don't I
have the right to
6 ask him about the consequences of what he did
afterwards?
7 JUDGE MAY: No, and you've heard the reasons. You
know how far
8 you're allowed to go and how far you aren't, and
this goes beyond it. If
9 it's a way to try and get round the ruling, which I
suspect it is, it will
10 not be successful. The witness has answered the
question. He said you
11 did make that allegation, for what it's worth, but
doesn't remember what
12 the qualifications were. Now, we can't take it any
further. All you can
13 ask him about is the conversation itself.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, so I can ask him
about the
15 conversation but I cannot ask him about the content
and meaning of that
16 conversation? Is that what you're trying to say?
17 JUDGE MAY: That's right. That's right. Particularly
these sort
18 of allegations that you're anxious to pursue.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's the
point, Mr. May.
20 This entire farce serves that purpose, to cover up
the crime committed
21 against Yugoslavia by --
22 JUDGE MAY: No, we don't want political speeches
now. We're far
23 too advanced in this trial to listen to this.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. All right. General Clark, do you think that in
view of your
Page 30455
1 military training and education, the high position
you held in the army of
2 the United States and in NATO, that the killing of
civilians, the bombing
3 of --
4 JUDGE MAY: Now, you know quite well that this is not
the sort of
5 question the witness is dealing with. We've told you
before you were
6 asking questions which you were perfectly permitted
to ask before the
7 adjournment. I suggest you return to that.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So you are not
allowing me to put a
9 single question in relation to the crimes that this
witness committed
10 against my country?
11 JUDGE MAY: You know quite well that these sort of
questions are
12 not permitted. These sort of allegations which you
make are not matters
13 which can be debated now, or indeed at any time
probably in this trial,
14 unless you show the relevance of it, but it's
certainly not relevant to
15 these -- to this evidence. This kind of allegation
does not assist
16 anybody.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Since
you've said just
18 now, Mr. May, that this cannot be discussed here, I
have here with me the
19 final report that a commission established to look
into the NATO campaign
20 against Yugoslavia, and this commission worked for
the Prosecution --
21 JUDGE MAY: No. You're wasting your own time. It's
very limited.
22 You know quite well what your questioning is
limited to. You must return
23 to it or this cross-examination will stop. It's a
matter for you whether
24 you want the cross-examination to stop or not. Now,
you will go back to
25 what the witness gave evidence about in chief or
this cross-examination
Page 30456
1 will be brought to an end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
25 Q. You mentioned, General Clark, the KLA in several
sections, in
Page 30500
1 several paragraphs, even in this latest statement of
yours. You talk
2 about their regrouping, you talk about operations
against the KLA, you
3 talk about the existence of the KLA, and so on.
4 You mentioned in your statement that I had said to
you that these
5 were murderers, rapists, plunderers, arsonists, that
these people were
6 terrorists. Do you remember that?
7 JUDGE MAY: Is this the reference now - let's make
sure we have
8 the reference right - to the conversation in October
1998? It's
9 paragraphs --
10 JUDGE KWON: 28.
11 JUDGE MAY: 28. That's the conversation, is it?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That paragraph and
other paragraphs.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. So I believe it is not in dispute that I said to
you, General
15 Clark, that these were terrorists, murderers,
rapists, killers of their
16 own kind. Is that right or is that not right? Was
that clear or was that
17 not clear?
18 A. You did say that to me in October of 1998, and
that is the phrase
19 you used. I remember you using it in English,
"murderers, rapists, and
20 killers of their own kind."
21 Q. And terrorists; right? Terrorists first and
foremost.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, please put this
picture on the
23 ELMO. These are men in KLA uniforms, and I hope
that you will recognise
24 the patch on the sleeve, the KLA patch. It can be
seen on the left arm.
25 So there is no doubt that this is the KLA. We see
this too.
Page 30501
1 JUDGE MAY: That is unnecessary. Remove that picture,
please.
2 This is nothing to do with the evidence. Return the
picture, please, to
3 the accused.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, these men in
KLA uniforms,
5 I mean, this man is holding two Serb heads that had
been cut off. Is that
6 confirmation? I mean, are these allies of General
Clark's infantry in
7 Kosovo?
........
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The general -- well,
I mean the
21 general is speaking in general terms about the KLA,
and you did not allow
22 me to show a picture yesterday of the three
Musketeers where he is like
23 D'Artagnan with the leaders of these terrorists.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. General, you actually commanded these
formations, these units that
Page 30503
1 cut off Serb heads.
..........
Q) You say in paragraph 28: "We know how to handle
these Albanians,
21 these murderers, these rapists, these killers of
their own kind. We have
22 taken care of them before." And you talk about
1946.
23 General, obviously you do not know history, the
history of the
24 Second World War. Do you know that in this context
I did not speak to you
25 about this at all? I'm going to remind you. I was
saying that many
Page 30504
1 members of Hitler's army who were Albanians and who
had been crushed spent
2 all of two years after the war in the mountains of
Kosovo, notably in
3 Drenica, and they were killing people, and that the
Yugoslav army spent
4 all of two years with them in Kosovo finishing off
the Second World War.
5 They were members of Hitler's units that remained in
the hills up there,
6 and the war went on for two more years over there in
Kosovo. Truth to
7 tell, it was a low-intensity conflict.
............
8 Q. General Clark, isn't it clear that the reference
here is not to
9 Albanians but to terrorists who that year had killed
more Albanians than
10 Serbs, as a matter of fact? These were terrorists
and killers towards
11 which every country, every nation is entitled to
take measures when
12 dealing with terrorists, killers, rapists,
torturists, slaughterers. That
13 was the reference, and not to Albanians. I never
used the name of a
14 people to link it to killers. Killers are killers.
Terrorists are
15 terrorists, regardless of what nation they may
belong to.
16 In this case, we were talking about terrorists and
killers, and in
17 1946 --
...............
19 And secondly, General, you certainly must know that
it was the
20 German intelligence service, in fact, that worked
on the formation of
21 terrorist groups and the equipping of the KLA. As
NATO commander, you
22 must have had such intelligence information.
.................
. Are you aware of the fact that after that,
23 after that October agreement, there were 470
terrorist attacks and 22
24 violations of the border between October and
December? This is contained
25 in a letter addressed by our Foreign Minister
Zivadin Jovanovic to Kofi
Page 30514
1 Annan in December 1998, in which he says that 1.854
terrorist attacks took
2 place, that 244 persons were killed, 566 wounded,
and after the signing of
3 the agreement, 470 terrorist attacks from the end of
October up until
4 December. Are you aware of that?
.................
23 You said a short while ago that you wanted to have
something
24 struck from the record. You wanted to say, as a
matter of fact, for the
25 record that the KLA was not a terrorist
organisation. Isn't that right,
Page 30530
1 General Clark?
2 A. Your Honour, I do not consider the KLA a
terrorist organisation.
3 Q. All right. Tell me, then, who was it then in 1998
that carried
4 out these 1.854 terrorist attacks, having killed
hundreds of people,
5 having wounded hundreds of people, civilians,
policemen, soldiers? Who
6 did that then in 1998 if not terrorists? Who could
have done it?
7 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop these rhetorical
questions. What is
8 the question?
.......................
3 Q. General Clark, since you claim that these
individuals who carried
4 out these acts of terrorism are not terrorists,
although several
5 resolutions of the Security Council refer to
terrorism in Kosovo, you
6 nevertheless claim that they are not terrorists.
7 Please answer a question: Is your election campaign
financed by
8 Albanian circles including the KLA?
...................
24 Q. You caused a humanitarian catastrophe, General
Clark. You didn't
25 save anyone. And since you were the NATO commander,
I assume that you
Page 30538
1 know that the Helsinki final act explicitly
authorises states to fight
2 against terrorism in their own territory and that no
other state has the
3 right to stop it or prevent it from doing that. You
interfered in this
4 conflict and you took the side of the terrorists,
General Clark. Is that
5 right or is that not right?
..................
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should first like
to refer to what
22 Mr. Nice has said, that apparently they're
investigating all crimes. If
23 they are investigating all crimes, then you have
first of all the
24 photograph of Clark, Hashim Thaci, Ceku and all the
others who were in
25 command of those crimes. As for the other
photographs that I showed, I
Page 30585
1 have the name of the person holding those heads and
the names of the Serbs
2 who were beheaded. And the photographs that I wanted
to show him, because
3 it was his allies that he is keeping company with
who did this.
4 Unfortunately, you are not investigating all crimes.
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
email: icdsm-italia@...
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
