Run, Sir Clark, Run... (page 10)

Aztec

I'm voting for Kucinich!

Screw y'all!

~Aztec

SixofNine

Would that "respect" be why Clinton ended up firing him?

lol. Man, you better save some of this for the primaries!

btw, were you really in Vietnam?

SixofNine

Is that why he was acussed of war crimes in Kosovo?

So who accused him of war crimes again?

Here are some of his own words on that situation:

What is Clark's position on...
Subject

National Security & Foreign Policy

Question

The International Criminal Court

Answer

?I know that the worst-case analysis of this is that American soldiers could be subject to whimsical or politically motivated charges, but the honest truth is, the United States intends to operate under international law. We helped build international law, we need international law. And we've got to find a way to work with this court and bring it around and make whatever modifications need to be made to it.

[I] was subjected to a war crimes investigation in my role as NATO commander. It didn't bother me a bit. We had full integration of lawyers in all of our activities. We never did anything that was the remotest bit beyond the shade of the law. We would never want to do that.? [SOURCE]

DakotaRed

So who accused him of war crimes again?

Uh, again? His being cleared has been questioned by many. SHAPE NEWS MORNING UPDATE 05 JUNE 2000

Russia raps war crimes tribunal on probe decision

Russia said on Saturday a decision by the UN war crimes tribunal not to investigate NATO over its 1999 bombing campaign against Yugoslavia showed the court was politically biased. "It is far from being the first time that the tribunal has closed its eyes to cases where the norms of international humanitarian law have been violated by other participants in the conflict," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.(Reuters 031646 GMT June 00) Yugoslav minister says tribunal NATO accomplice

Yugoslavia called on the United Nations on Sunday to disband its war crimes tribunal , saying the body had become an accomplice of NATO by refusing to probe the alliance over its air campaign against Yugoslavia last year. Information Minister Goran Matic urged the UN Security Council ambassadors to wind up what he called an "illegal, illegitimate and biased body" and sack its prosecutor Carla del Ponte .(Reuters 042108 GMT June 00) SHAPE NEWS SUMMARY & ANALYSIS 05 JUNE 2000

The UN's top war crimes prosecutor's conclusions that there are no grounds to pursue allegations that NATO committed war crimes during its air campaign against Yugoslavia, have generated comments. The Washington Post, June 03, notes that the decision of Carla Del Ponte has revived charges from Russia and China that the tribunal is a political tool of the West. In fact Gennady Gatilov - Russia's deputy envoy to the UN - has complained to the Security Council that Del Ponte's action was "premature" and that the tribunal has been biased against Serbs. In a heated rejoinder, Del Ponte has reportedly rejected that accusation. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal underlines that the West was drawn into the conflict only after more than a year's worth of intensive diplomatic efforts were, one by one, rebuffed by Milosevic. Indeed the specific war crimes alleged against NATO were the result of western squeamishness, not ill-intent, the daily stresses. Germany's Suddeutsche Zeitung and Italy's Corriere della Sera also note the issue SHAPE NEWS MORNING UPDATE 07 JUNE 2000

NATO violated international law in the Kosovo crisis by bombing targets where it knew civilians would be killed, Amnesty International said on Wednesday. The London-based human rights group said it was not judging the moral or legal basis for the Western alliance's 11-week air campaign, but called for attacks on key bridges and the Serbian state broadcaster to be investigated. Amnesty said Serb accounts put the civilian death toll at 400-600 but that the number could have been "significantly reduced if NATO forces had fully adhered to the laws of war." It urged NATO to set up a mechanism to ensure a common approach to the rules of war among its 19 members and to clarify its command structure and decision-making on target selection. Amnesty International also called on France, Turkey and the United States to ratify a 1977 protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions that prohibits attacks on civilians.(Reuters 062302 GMT June 00) SHAPE NEWS SUMMARY & ANALYSIS 07 JUNE 2000

NATO rejects Amnesty International charges

NATO has rejected as "baseless and ill-founded" allegations by Amnesty International that it violated the rules of war in the Kosovo conflict last year, AFP writes. The report quotes NATO Secretary General George Robertson as stating that "NATO scrupulously adhered to international law, including the law of war, throughout the conflict and made every effort to minimize civilian casualties." Lord Robertson's statement acknowledges that "in a few cases mistakes were made...leading to civilian deaths or injuries," but "such incidents must be weighed against the atrocities that NATO's action stopped."

UK MPs: Kosovo campaign moral but perhaps illegal

An influential group of members of the British Parliament is quoted by Reuters as saying that NATO's bombing campaign may have breached international law but was morally justified. Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee reportedly said that there was nothing explicit in NATO's powers to allow it to conduct a war on humanitarian grounds without the full backing of the UN, the dispatch writes. "We conclude that NATO's military action, if of dubious legality in the current state of international law, was justified on moral grounds," the cross-party committee reportedly stated.

"I consulted with lawyers before bombing" headlines Italy's La Repubblica in an interview with General Clark, who was "happy but not surprised" at last week's 'acquittal' of NATO decided by the Hague Court. He told the newspaper that "in order to avoid violating international laws, every military action was submitted for the evaluation of our lawyers." Gen. Clark mentioned that these lawyers were located in Aviano (Italy), Washington, London and Paris.

Please explain how Englands Parliament claims that NATOs actions, although of dubious legality were morally justified, yet Clark claims he avoided violating international law? Guess it depends on who is waging the war, huh?

DakotaRed

Pettygrudger, here is a link to CNN and Clarks stance on issues of interest. Please note the many "no Public Stance" comments.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.clark.html

Run, Sir Clark, Run...

Aztec

SixofNine

Aztec

SixofNine

DakotaRed

DakotaRed

Share this