Criminal Clark
1. Milosevic trial sets precedent: US granted right to censor evidence
2. Wesley Clark: America's Man On Horseback To Out-Herod Herod
SEE ALSO:
Candidate Clark stumps (the rest of us) at the Hague
http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=214
Wesley Clark, defender of KLA terrorists, joins race to White House (by
Mary Mostert)
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/030922
Criminalization of International Law: War Criminal to Testify at The
Hague
"War Crimes" Tribunal , Toronto Lawyers
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BLA312A.html
General Clark's self aggrandizement (by Vojin Joksimovich)
http://news.serbianunity.net/press/suc285.html
=== 1 ===
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/cens-d31_prn.shtml
World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : The Balkans
Milosevic trial sets precedent: US granted right to censor evidence
By Paul Mitchell
31 December 2003
Earlier this month the US government demanded and received the right to
censor testimony at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY).
A press release issued before Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley
Clark gave evidence at the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic said Clark’s testimony would be given in closed session. The
press release also said the normally simultaneous broadcast of the
testimony would “be delayed for a period of 48 hours to enable the US
government to review the transcript and make representations as to
whether evidence given in open session should be redacted in order to
protect the national interests of the US.”
Milosevic faces 66 counts of war crimes and genocide allegedly
committed in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. Clark was
commander of the 78-day NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in
1999 that destroyed much of Serbia’s industrial infrastructure and left
thousands of civilians dead.
There have been several attempts to prosecute Clark himself for war
crimes committed during the NATO bombing. In that year a group of
Canadian lawyers and academics asked the ICTY to investigate and indict
Clark and others for war crimes in Yugoslavia saying that there was
“overwhelming evidence that the attack was unlawful and that the
conduct of the attack [was] on civilian objects.” Former US Attorney
General Ramsey Clark has also accused Clark and other leaders of war
crimes and crimes against humanity and in September 2000 a Belgrade
court found Wesley Clark and other Western leaders guilty.
However, the ICTY has refused to indict any US or NATO military or
political leaders as it deals out victors’ justice on behalf of the
western powers.
Clark has admitted the illegal basis on which NATO fought a war of
aggression in Kosovo. In his book Fighting Modern War, Clark says the
war “was coercive diplomacy, the use of armed forces to impose the
political will of the NATO nations on the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, or more specifically, on Serbia.”
The Bush administration is keen to see Milosevic found guilty and so
wanted Clark to testify. But its primary concern is to protect US
officials from ever facing trial for war crimes and to prevent any act
of military aggression on its part being judged illegal. To this end it
has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court and bribed and
bullied governments to promise that they will never prosecute US
officials or military personnel.
At the ICTY testimony involving US citizens has been carefully
controlled. The Washington Post prevented a former reporter Jonathan
Randall from appearing at the trial of Radoslav Brdjanin, a Bosnian
Serb accused of genocide and persecution. The testimony given at
Milosevic’s trial by William Walker, the former head of the Kosovo
Verification Mission, was restricted to the alleged massacre at Racak
that provided the pretext for the NATO bombing of Serbia.
The Bush administration is also concerned that Milosevic has based his
self-defence on pointing the finger at his accusers and charging them
with war crimes. This, and the prosecution’s inability to produce a
“smoking gun” to prove Milosevic’s guilt, has weakened the court’s
credibility. Charges of genocide have been dropped against all but one
of those accused at the ICTY. With most of the convictions based on
individual crimes against humanity, the premise that Milosevic
organised a systematic ethnic cleansing campaign has been undermined.
The appearance of Clark at the ICTY was therefore fraught with dangers.
He has played a key role in the US drive to establish its world
hegemony. Before he became NATO Supreme Allied Commander, he was
Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff
with responsibilities for worldwide US military strategic planning. In
this capacity he was part of the team negotiating the Dayton Accord
ending the five-year war in Bosnia. This is where Clark first met
Milosevic who was granted a key role under the accord in policing and
enforcing the agreed peace formula.
From 1996 to 1997 Clark served as Commander-in-Chief of the US Southern
Command in Panama where he was responsible for the direction of
military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean.
US officials have downplayed the extent to which they censored Clark’s
testimony saying, “Nothing was redacted, only one thing related to the
US government ... He gave very specific testimony about Milosevic’s
intentions. Nothing about Milosevic has been cut.”
In one respect this is true. A close reading of the transcript shows
that the prosecution were determined to focus on Milosevic’s role and
prevent any revelations about US or NATO “intentions” emerging and any
discussion of the NATO action. Judge Richard May went along with this,
preventing Milosevic from pursuing any areas that fell outside Clark’s
carefully restricted and vetted testimony.
Beginning his cross-examination Milosevic pointed out the unprecedented
nature of the court’s acquiescence in the face of US pressure saying,
“I don’t quite understand the position of this witness ...
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.”
Judge May quickly prevented Milosevic from elaborating stating, “We are
not going to argue this point. We have made our order. The reason that
the government have any rights in the matter at all is this, that in
order to provide information to this Court, it is occasionally—and I
stress occasionally—necessary for governments to do so, and they are
allowed to do so under our Rules on certain terms, and these are one of
the terms which has been followed in this case.”
When Milosevic tried to question Clark about his book Fighting Modern
War with the words, “General Clark, in your book you say that the NATO
military action against Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 could not be
called a war,” May again intervened:
“I don’t think we are going to have that debate. That’s precisely what
I have been talking about. You’re not allowed a free-ranging discussion
about the NATO action.”
May also prevented Milosevic asking Clark, “Is it true that in an
interview that you gave to the New Yorker on the 17 November you said
that the war you waged was technically illegal?” and declaring that
Clark had “given no evidence about the legality of the war.”
That the US government was allowed to censor evidence at an
international court set up by the United Nations in a Western democracy
and presided over by a British judge speaks volumes about the nature of
international justice. It also indicates the type of justice Saddam
Hussein will face should he ever come to trial in US-occupied Iraq.
If Milosevic had been given free rein to question his accusers such as
Clark, he could have provided ample evidence, not only of the years in
which the US enjoyed close relations with his regime but of how
Washington set out to provoke a war in order to seize control of the
Balkan region, using the pretext of human rights abuses by Serbia. The
parallels with Iraq are obvious. The only difference in the case of
Saddam Hussein is that the record of US support for his regime is
longer and the pretext used for war is more flimsy and discredited.
Copyright 1998-2003
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
=== 2 ===
Da: RicK Rozoff
Data: Ven 2 Gen 2004 14:40:28 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Wesley Clark: America's Man On Horseback To Out-Herod Herod
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=716&e=6&u=/ap/
20040102/ap_on_el_pr/clark_democrats
[The commander of the first undeclared, unprovoked war
against a European nation since Adolph Hitler's
blitzkrieg campaigns of 1939-1941 is defining the real
issue in this year's American presidential campaign:
Who is militarily best qualified to lead the United
States in its self-appointed role of master of the
planet.
With the likes of Michael Moore, Madonna, Charles
Rangel and The American Prospect cheering on the Seven
Days In May scenario.]
Associated Press
January 2, 2003
Clark Sets His Sights on Dean
By WILL LESTER
-"{I]'m the only candidate positioned to actually win
the election because I am the candidate best able to
stand up to George W. Bush and win the debate about
who will best be able to make our country secure over
the next four years."
-[I]t's clear that the former NATO commander
repeatedly will be emphasizing his military experience
as a valuable counter to President Bush's strength on
national security.
-Clark's financial strength could help him challenge
for the nomination. He raised between $10.5 million
and $11 million in the final quarter and is getting
$3.7 million in federal matching money.
-His rivals have criticized Clark's past support for
Republican presidents. They also found fault with his
stumble on the Iraq war issue right after entering the
race in September.
WASHINGTON - Flush with money after a big fourth
quarter of fund raising, Democratic presidential
candidate Wesley Clark is mapping out how he can
parlay that success into becoming the alternative to
Howard Dean.
"It's now clear that I'm one of only two candidates in
a position to win the nomination," Clark, a retired
Army general, said in a statement Thursday. "And I'm
the only candidate positioned to actually win the
election because I am the candidate best able to stand
up to George W. Bush and win the debate about who will
best be able to make our country secure over the next
four years."
Clark said he believes his "fund-raising success will
be a leading indicator of the direction this campaign
is heading in."
And it's clear that the former NATO commander
repeatedly will be emphasizing his military experience
as a valuable counter to President Bush's strength on
national security.
Bush had a 67 percent to 21 percent lead over Dean on
whom people trust more to handle national security,
according to a mid-December ABC-Washington Post poll.
Dean's campaign aides say his strength in a general
election campaign is his ability to mobilize new
voters and to raise money beyond the limits
established by the federal presidential election
financing system. Dean decided not to accept federal
matching funds and the limits that go with it.
Dean spokesman Jay Carson said Clark and other
candidates taking matching funds will be "flat broke
after the primary campaign and sitting ducks for
President Bush." Bush also has decided not to take
federal money during the primary season that begins
this month, and his re-election campaign already has
raised more than $115 million.
Clark's financial strength could help him challenge
for the nomination. He raised between $10.5 million
and $11 million in the final quarter and is getting
$3.7 million in federal matching money.
Now his campaign is providing a road map on how he
plans to capitalize on his strong financial position.
"We will have ample resources to compete well into
February and beyond," campaign spokesman Matt Bennett
said.
Clark is in relatively strong position in polls both
nationally and in states with early contests.
As Clark tries to narrow the race to two candidates,
other campaigns are likely to start diverting some of
their relentless attacks on Dean.
Campaign aides to Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut
senator, say Clark is relying too heavily on his
biography as a military man.
In fact, the Clark campaign is sending a 15-minute
videotape about the general's life and views to 50,000
possible primary voters in New Hampshire and showing
it on several cable channels in the state before the
Jan. 27 primary.
His rivals have criticized Clark's past support for
Republican presidents. They also found fault with his
stumble on the Iraq war issue right after entering the
race in September. After giving contradictory answers,
he now consistently says he is against the way the war
was handled.
Starting Monday, Clark plans a carefully orchestrated
introduction of domestic and security proposals. Clark
plans to roll out a "signature issue" on the domestic
front Monday, though aides wouldn't discuss specifics.
For a week in mid-January, the former NATO commander
plans to address different aspects of domestic and
economic security each day, including a detailed
homeland security plan. During that week, he will
focus his campaign on New Hampshire and states with
contests in early to mid-February.
Starting the week of Jan. 19, Clark plans to campaign
steadily in New Hampshire, as all the candidates move
their campaigns to the Northeast.
Relying on his strong finances, Clark is advertising
heavily in New Hampshire, as well as in many states in
the South and West with contests in February.
The Clark campaign is counting on building a strong
grass-roots presence, both through traditional means
and through the Internet.
Taking a calculated risk, Clark is not competing in
the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses, saying he entered the race
too late to compete there. Lieberman also is skipping
Iowa.
Iowa plays an important role in several other
candidates' plans to challenge Dean. Dick Gephardt,
the Missouri congressman with the comprehensive health
care proposal, is counting heavily on a win in Iowa,
while senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John
Edwards of North Carolina hope to do well in Iowa to
strengthen their hand in New Hampshire and beyond.
1. Milosevic trial sets precedent: US granted right to censor evidence
2. Wesley Clark: America's Man On Horseback To Out-Herod Herod
SEE ALSO:
Candidate Clark stumps (the rest of us) at the Hague
http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=214
Wesley Clark, defender of KLA terrorists, joins race to White House (by
Mary Mostert)
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/030922
Criminalization of International Law: War Criminal to Testify at The
Hague
"War Crimes" Tribunal , Toronto Lawyers
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BLA312A.html
General Clark's self aggrandizement (by Vojin Joksimovich)
http://news.serbianunity.net/press/suc285.html
=== 1 ===
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/cens-d31_prn.shtml
World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : The Balkans
Milosevic trial sets precedent: US granted right to censor evidence
By Paul Mitchell
31 December 2003
Earlier this month the US government demanded and received the right to
censor testimony at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY).
A press release issued before Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley
Clark gave evidence at the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic said Clark’s testimony would be given in closed session. The
press release also said the normally simultaneous broadcast of the
testimony would “be delayed for a period of 48 hours to enable the US
government to review the transcript and make representations as to
whether evidence given in open session should be redacted in order to
protect the national interests of the US.”
Milosevic faces 66 counts of war crimes and genocide allegedly
committed in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. Clark was
commander of the 78-day NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in
1999 that destroyed much of Serbia’s industrial infrastructure and left
thousands of civilians dead.
There have been several attempts to prosecute Clark himself for war
crimes committed during the NATO bombing. In that year a group of
Canadian lawyers and academics asked the ICTY to investigate and indict
Clark and others for war crimes in Yugoslavia saying that there was
“overwhelming evidence that the attack was unlawful and that the
conduct of the attack [was] on civilian objects.” Former US Attorney
General Ramsey Clark has also accused Clark and other leaders of war
crimes and crimes against humanity and in September 2000 a Belgrade
court found Wesley Clark and other Western leaders guilty.
However, the ICTY has refused to indict any US or NATO military or
political leaders as it deals out victors’ justice on behalf of the
western powers.
Clark has admitted the illegal basis on which NATO fought a war of
aggression in Kosovo. In his book Fighting Modern War, Clark says the
war “was coercive diplomacy, the use of armed forces to impose the
political will of the NATO nations on the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, or more specifically, on Serbia.”
The Bush administration is keen to see Milosevic found guilty and so
wanted Clark to testify. But its primary concern is to protect US
officials from ever facing trial for war crimes and to prevent any act
of military aggression on its part being judged illegal. To this end it
has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court and bribed and
bullied governments to promise that they will never prosecute US
officials or military personnel.
At the ICTY testimony involving US citizens has been carefully
controlled. The Washington Post prevented a former reporter Jonathan
Randall from appearing at the trial of Radoslav Brdjanin, a Bosnian
Serb accused of genocide and persecution. The testimony given at
Milosevic’s trial by William Walker, the former head of the Kosovo
Verification Mission, was restricted to the alleged massacre at Racak
that provided the pretext for the NATO bombing of Serbia.
The Bush administration is also concerned that Milosevic has based his
self-defence on pointing the finger at his accusers and charging them
with war crimes. This, and the prosecution’s inability to produce a
“smoking gun” to prove Milosevic’s guilt, has weakened the court’s
credibility. Charges of genocide have been dropped against all but one
of those accused at the ICTY. With most of the convictions based on
individual crimes against humanity, the premise that Milosevic
organised a systematic ethnic cleansing campaign has been undermined.
The appearance of Clark at the ICTY was therefore fraught with dangers.
He has played a key role in the US drive to establish its world
hegemony. Before he became NATO Supreme Allied Commander, he was
Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff
with responsibilities for worldwide US military strategic planning. In
this capacity he was part of the team negotiating the Dayton Accord
ending the five-year war in Bosnia. This is where Clark first met
Milosevic who was granted a key role under the accord in policing and
enforcing the agreed peace formula.
From 1996 to 1997 Clark served as Commander-in-Chief of the US Southern
Command in Panama where he was responsible for the direction of
military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean.
US officials have downplayed the extent to which they censored Clark’s
testimony saying, “Nothing was redacted, only one thing related to the
US government ... He gave very specific testimony about Milosevic’s
intentions. Nothing about Milosevic has been cut.”
In one respect this is true. A close reading of the transcript shows
that the prosecution were determined to focus on Milosevic’s role and
prevent any revelations about US or NATO “intentions” emerging and any
discussion of the NATO action. Judge Richard May went along with this,
preventing Milosevic from pursuing any areas that fell outside Clark’s
carefully restricted and vetted testimony.
Beginning his cross-examination Milosevic pointed out the unprecedented
nature of the court’s acquiescence in the face of US pressure saying,
“I don’t quite understand the position of this witness ...
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.”
Judge May quickly prevented Milosevic from elaborating stating, “We are
not going to argue this point. We have made our order. The reason that
the government have any rights in the matter at all is this, that in
order to provide information to this Court, it is occasionally—and I
stress occasionally—necessary for governments to do so, and they are
allowed to do so under our Rules on certain terms, and these are one of
the terms which has been followed in this case.”
When Milosevic tried to question Clark about his book Fighting Modern
War with the words, “General Clark, in your book you say that the NATO
military action against Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 could not be
called a war,” May again intervened:
“I don’t think we are going to have that debate. That’s precisely what
I have been talking about. You’re not allowed a free-ranging discussion
about the NATO action.”
May also prevented Milosevic asking Clark, “Is it true that in an
interview that you gave to the New Yorker on the 17 November you said
that the war you waged was technically illegal?” and declaring that
Clark had “given no evidence about the legality of the war.”
That the US government was allowed to censor evidence at an
international court set up by the United Nations in a Western democracy
and presided over by a British judge speaks volumes about the nature of
international justice. It also indicates the type of justice Saddam
Hussein will face should he ever come to trial in US-occupied Iraq.
If Milosevic had been given free rein to question his accusers such as
Clark, he could have provided ample evidence, not only of the years in
which the US enjoyed close relations with his regime but of how
Washington set out to provoke a war in order to seize control of the
Balkan region, using the pretext of human rights abuses by Serbia. The
parallels with Iraq are obvious. The only difference in the case of
Saddam Hussein is that the record of US support for his regime is
longer and the pretext used for war is more flimsy and discredited.
Copyright 1998-2003
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
=== 2 ===
Da: RicK Rozoff
Data: Ven 2 Gen 2004 14:40:28 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Wesley Clark: America's Man On Horseback To Out-Herod Herod
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=716&e=6&u=/ap/
20040102/ap_on_el_pr/clark_democrats
[The commander of the first undeclared, unprovoked war
against a European nation since Adolph Hitler's
blitzkrieg campaigns of 1939-1941 is defining the real
issue in this year's American presidential campaign:
Who is militarily best qualified to lead the United
States in its self-appointed role of master of the
planet.
With the likes of Michael Moore, Madonna, Charles
Rangel and The American Prospect cheering on the Seven
Days In May scenario.]
Associated Press
January 2, 2003
Clark Sets His Sights on Dean
By WILL LESTER
-"{I]'m the only candidate positioned to actually win
the election because I am the candidate best able to
stand up to George W. Bush and win the debate about
who will best be able to make our country secure over
the next four years."
-[I]t's clear that the former NATO commander
repeatedly will be emphasizing his military experience
as a valuable counter to President Bush's strength on
national security.
-Clark's financial strength could help him challenge
for the nomination. He raised between $10.5 million
and $11 million in the final quarter and is getting
$3.7 million in federal matching money.
-His rivals have criticized Clark's past support for
Republican presidents. They also found fault with his
stumble on the Iraq war issue right after entering the
race in September.
WASHINGTON - Flush with money after a big fourth
quarter of fund raising, Democratic presidential
candidate Wesley Clark is mapping out how he can
parlay that success into becoming the alternative to
Howard Dean.
"It's now clear that I'm one of only two candidates in
a position to win the nomination," Clark, a retired
Army general, said in a statement Thursday. "And I'm
the only candidate positioned to actually win the
election because I am the candidate best able to stand
up to George W. Bush and win the debate about who will
best be able to make our country secure over the next
four years."
Clark said he believes his "fund-raising success will
be a leading indicator of the direction this campaign
is heading in."
And it's clear that the former NATO commander
repeatedly will be emphasizing his military experience
as a valuable counter to President Bush's strength on
national security.
Bush had a 67 percent to 21 percent lead over Dean on
whom people trust more to handle national security,
according to a mid-December ABC-Washington Post poll.
Dean's campaign aides say his strength in a general
election campaign is his ability to mobilize new
voters and to raise money beyond the limits
established by the federal presidential election
financing system. Dean decided not to accept federal
matching funds and the limits that go with it.
Dean spokesman Jay Carson said Clark and other
candidates taking matching funds will be "flat broke
after the primary campaign and sitting ducks for
President Bush." Bush also has decided not to take
federal money during the primary season that begins
this month, and his re-election campaign already has
raised more than $115 million.
Clark's financial strength could help him challenge
for the nomination. He raised between $10.5 million
and $11 million in the final quarter and is getting
$3.7 million in federal matching money.
Now his campaign is providing a road map on how he
plans to capitalize on his strong financial position.
"We will have ample resources to compete well into
February and beyond," campaign spokesman Matt Bennett
said.
Clark is in relatively strong position in polls both
nationally and in states with early contests.
As Clark tries to narrow the race to two candidates,
other campaigns are likely to start diverting some of
their relentless attacks on Dean.
Campaign aides to Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut
senator, say Clark is relying too heavily on his
biography as a military man.
In fact, the Clark campaign is sending a 15-minute
videotape about the general's life and views to 50,000
possible primary voters in New Hampshire and showing
it on several cable channels in the state before the
Jan. 27 primary.
His rivals have criticized Clark's past support for
Republican presidents. They also found fault with his
stumble on the Iraq war issue right after entering the
race in September. After giving contradictory answers,
he now consistently says he is against the way the war
was handled.
Starting Monday, Clark plans a carefully orchestrated
introduction of domestic and security proposals. Clark
plans to roll out a "signature issue" on the domestic
front Monday, though aides wouldn't discuss specifics.
For a week in mid-January, the former NATO commander
plans to address different aspects of domestic and
economic security each day, including a detailed
homeland security plan. During that week, he will
focus his campaign on New Hampshire and states with
contests in early to mid-February.
Starting the week of Jan. 19, Clark plans to campaign
steadily in New Hampshire, as all the candidates move
their campaigns to the Northeast.
Relying on his strong finances, Clark is advertising
heavily in New Hampshire, as well as in many states in
the South and West with contests in February.
The Clark campaign is counting on building a strong
grass-roots presence, both through traditional means
and through the Internet.
Taking a calculated risk, Clark is not competing in
the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses, saying he entered the race
too late to compete there. Lieberman also is skipping
Iowa.
Iowa plays an important role in several other
candidates' plans to challenge Dean. Dick Gephardt,
the Missouri congressman with the comprehensive health
care proposal, is counting heavily on a win in Iowa,
while senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John
Edwards of North Carolina hope to do well in Iowa to
strengthen their hand in New Hampshire and beyond.