Hague secrecy - whose responsibility? My letter to Conason:

[robbedvoter]

Subject: Clark's "blackout?" Why " "?

. Dear Mr Conason,

You seem to think that General Clark is at liberty to dictate the State Department what he should do at the Hague hearings, when he testifies as a representative of the uS government.
For a little context, here's what was discussed on Meet the Press on the subject:
   "GEN. CLARK: That’s right, Tim. I’m going to be going over there 15, 16 December to testify. When I was the supreme allied commander, and before that, when I was on the Joint Staff, I spent dozens, maybe 150 hours or so, with Slobodan Milosevic. I saw him at every state of the negotiations, beginning in the summer of 1995, and on through—and then again in the build-up to Kosovo. I’ve told about some of it in
       my first book, but these are conversations that the prosecutor says would be significant. And I think this is very important. I think it’s my duty to go there. This is a historic trial. It’s the first time we’ve really held a head of state accountable like this. And I’m proud to be doing that under international law.
       MR. RUSSERT: Who requested that you go?
       GEN. CLARK: The prosecutor.
       MR. RUSSERT: Has the United States government approved your trip?
       GEN. CLARK: They have.
       MR. RUSSERT: Who has?
       GEN. CLARK: The secretary of state has approved this and, of course, the Pentagon, because I was acting in an official capacity. So I’ll have a Department of Defense lawyer and State Department lawyers with me.
       MR. RUSSERT: What will you say about Milosevic?
       GEN. CLARK: Well, whatever they ask me, I’ll tell them the truth about the conversations. This is about what Milosevic knew, when he knew it, what his intent was, how he viewed situations, how he operated. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that I bring, plus maybe more than that in some cases.
       MR. RUSSERT: Are you prepared for suggestions that this is part of a political campaign for president, a photo opportunity?
       GEN. CLARK: Well, if you’re suggesting that, it’s simply not true. This has been in the process for some time, and we’ve been negotiating with them for some time. And I thought, frankly, I was off the hook on this, but they came back in July and said that, you know, I would have to testify sometime during the fall, and it continued to slip until now; it’s December.
       MR. RUSSERT: And you’ll have to take some time off the campaign trail to do this?
       GEN. CLARK: That’s right. That’s exactly right"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/994273.asp?cp1=1
In other words, Clark is testifying as a government representative and the determination of what is classified or not does NOT rest with him. His only option would have been not to go. This is what happened to Holbrooke 's testimony:
"Last year, Hague prosecutors wanted to call former Balkan envoy Richard Holbrooke, but changed their minds when the Bush administration insisted on closed sessions."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001806160_clark03.html
You are drawing inferences from this situation to a Clark presidency without taking into consideration the fact that multilateralism has been the centerpiece of Clark's foreign policy doctrine (whether is Bosnia, Iraq or ME). More specifically, Clark was himself even questioned about possible war crimes violations by U.S. forces in Kosovo, but he still vigorously opposed any withdrawal of U.S. support from the ICC because he believes it is so vital to the cause of international law. This should give you an insight in Clark's character. Here is his interview with Wolf Blitzer on the subject of the ICC:
http://www.amicc.org/docs/Clark7_7_02.pdf

Based on all this, one can only conclude that faced with two bad choices (not to testify or do it in secret) Clark decided to do his duty, the best he could

[DUreader]

1. A good letter

let us know if you get a response

[phylla]

2. I asked General Clark the War Crimes Trial question yesterday

I was hoping , of course, that he would say that indeed this was a political tactic by the White House to keep General Clark from getting a huge boost to his campaign by being showcased as an international war hero and statesman.

But he very convincingly said that that was not the case- that politics has nothing to do with the ban.

He said that there are national security leak considerations and also said that an extremely important cause for the blackout and 48 hour delay is that Milosevic is acting as his own lawyer. Therefore the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato being grilled by his defeated foe was not appropriate and would give Milosevic huge opportunities to grandstand and rant and rave in front of the cameras.
And General Clark said that he would, of course, answer everything asked in a truthful manner no matter how crazy and off the wall Milosevic's questions were or how he acted.

General Clark is one amazing individual-genuine, candid, erudite and downright inspirational.

A man with his integrity would never seek political gain from being highlighted as the very influential and important international figure that he is.

And that fact alone reaffirms my support for his candidacy.

[newyawker99]

3. Hi phylla!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: