Clark to be Blacked Out

Hmmmm. From the Seattle Times via the Chicago Tribune...
____________
Clark testimony to be censored in Milosevic trial

By Tom Hundley; The Associated Press
Chicago Tribune

LONDON — The Bush administration has imposed heavy secrecy and censorship measures on the testimony of retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, when he takes the stand this month at the war-crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

The administration's action will blunt the drama of what many expected to be a crucial moment in Milosevic's lengthy trial and perhaps one of the defining moments in the presidential campaign of Clark, who defeated the Yugoslav leader in the Kosovo campaign.

At the insistence of State Department's legal office, the courtroom's public gallery will be cleared when Clark is called to testify Dec. 15 and 16 in The Hague, Netherlands. Cameras that broadcast the proceedings on closed-circuit television and the Internet will be blacked out.

There also will be a 48-hour delay on the release of the trial transcript that will enable State Department lawyers to examine Clark's testimony and request the deletion of portions they deem harmful to national interests.

U.N. prosecutors are unhappy with the arrangement, but said they had little choice but to accept if they wanted Clark's testimony.

"It's always better when you have everything in public and out in the open, but this is the best we could get," said Florence Hartmann, spokeswoman for Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor.

Under the rules that govern the International War Crimes Tribunal, secret testimony is allowed, but it has usually been reserved for officials dealing with sensitive intelligence matters or actively engaged in intelligence gathering. There also are secrecy provisions to protect witnesses who have reason to fear for their safety.

But for a high-profile public figure, the secrecy surrounding Clark's testimony is unprecedented, especially in light of the fact that Clark has written a lengthy book and numerous articles on NATO and the Kosovo war, and has freely given his opinion on these subjects as a TV commentator and presidential candidate.

"We are concerned about the perception, especially in the countries that were involved (in the war)," said Hartmann. "If you do things in a closed session, people think you are hiding something and that it is not a fair trial."

The State Department declined to answer specific questions but denied that it was trying to censor Clark.

The reason the department wants a 48-hour delay to vet Clark's testimony "is not to discourage or hinder reporting but to allow for the maximum provision of information by General Clark to the Tribunal while at the same time protecting against the inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information," said Lou Fintor, a State Department spokesman.

Other senior political and military figures have testified in open court against Milosevic, including Klaus Naumann, the German general who commanded the NATO war in Kosovo, and British envoys Paddy Ashdown and David Owen. U.S. diplomat William Walker, whose outrage at the Serbian police massacre of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo galvanized U.S. opinion in support of military action, gave his testimony in open court.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has been the highest-ranking U.S. official to appear at The Hague. She gave her testimony in a public session during proceedings against the Bosnian Serb leader Biljana Plavsic.

"Closed sessions are for victims who might be harmed, not governments who might be embarrassed," said a tribunal source.

The Bush administration, which underwrites a large part of the tribunal's costs, has balked at sharing intelligence that would aid tribunal investigators and has thwarted attempts to call senior U.S. officials. Last year, Hague prosecutors wanted to call former Balkan envoy Richard Holbrooke, but changed their minds when the Bush administration insisted on closed sessions.

Milosevic, who is acting as his own lawyer, is defending himself against charges of genocide and other crimes against humanity in connection with a decade of war in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.

During the trial, now in its 21st month, Milosevic has badgered and bullied witnesses. The technique has been effective with ordinary citizens from Bosnia and Kosovo, but has generally backfired when he tries to use it against experienced public figures.

Clark knows Milosevic well, having served as Holbrooke's military adviser during many hours of negotiations with the Serbian leader in Belgrade and during the Dayton peace talks. He directed NATO's 78-day air campaign against Yugoslavia, forcing Milosevic to withdraw troops from Kosovo.

Clark has stated his willingness to testify against Milosevic, and political observers have viewed his appearance at The Hague as an opportunity for him to boost his stature in a crowded Democratic field.

Clark declined to comment on the restrictions and campaign spokesman Matt Bennett said "the campaign has no involvement at all in Gen. Clark's testimony."

 

Joe Conason's Journal
In a gross abuse of authority for political gain, the State Department has insisted that Clark's scheduled testimony against Milosevic be closed to press.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Dec. 4, 2003 | Why is the State Department silencing Clark?
Among the topics most passionately argued by Democratic presidential candidates and their handlers is who among them would be the nominee most (or least) favored by Karl Rove. Which Democrat does the White House prefer to see win the nomination? And which of the nine is most feared as a potential challenger?

Lately Howard Dean is most often mentioned by Republicans as their favorite Democratic nominee (although they probably daydream about Al Sharpton). Dean's supporters reply that such trash talk is merely Rovian misdirection, designed to dupe primary voters into rejecting the former Vermont governor. Perhaps so, but this month the Bush administration is actually using its power to suppress news coverage of another Democratic rival.

That would be Wesley Clark, whose scheduled testimony against Slobodan Milosevic at the former Serbian dictator's genocide trial will reportedly be closed to the press and public -- at the insistence of the U.S. State Department.

According to Knight-Ridder, State Department officials have demanded a sealed courtroom, cleared of journalists and other spectators, when Clark appears at The Hague on Dec. 15 and 16. American officials have also shut down the cameras that normally broadcast the Milosevic trial on closed-circuit television and over the Internet. Finally, the transcript will be withheld from reporters and the public for two days while U.S. officials vet Clark's testimony to request the removal of any statement that might somehow endanger American security interests.

Tom Hundley interviewed prosecutors at The Hague, who told him that they aren't pleased with this kind of interference because it tends to discredit international due process in the affected countries. But why would the Bush administration care? On its best days this White House displays little interest in allied nations' concerns, and even less in the pursuit of international justice.

High officials from several countries have testified in open court, including the German general who commanded his country's forces in Kosovo and two British envoys who played key roles in the Balkan crisis. Of all the governments with delicate information to protect, only the Bush administration has prevented a former official's testimony from being heard live. As Hundley writes:

"When high-ranking officials are called as witnesses, the normal procedure for dealing with sensitive testimony is to allow representatives of their government to be present in the courtroom and to intervene if they believe the official's testimony might harm national interests. The tribunal then goes into a temporary closed session to deal with that portion of the testimony. 'Closed sessions are for victims who might be harmed, not governments who might be embarrassed,' said a tribunal source."

In what respect could our national security be jeopardized by Clark's testimony? Actually, U.S. security and prestige would more likely be enhanced by worldwide coverage of a former American general testifying about his country's defense of the oppressed Balkan Muslims.

Besides, the former Allied commander has already written a book about his service in Europe and spoken publicly about those events on many occasions. In that vein, Hundley notes how the Bush bureaucrats used the same tactic to stifle Richard Holbrooke when he was called to testify against Milosevic last year. (They thus prevented the former Clinton envoy's appearance at The Hague, at least temporarily.) Of course Holbrooke too has written a memoir and talked frequently about Milosevic, Bosnia and Kosovo.

A spokesman for the State Department refused to answer any of Hundley's specific questions about the strange decision to black out Clark. In the absence of any convincing explanation, this appears to be a matter not only of harmful judicial meddling and unwarranted censorship, but a gross abuse of diplomatic authority for domestic political advantage as well.

Wisely, Clark has said nothing about the restrictions placed on him by the State Department. This is an episode that requires no additional comment.

 

How do you know it's the truth if they are allowed to remove some of the testimony before making it available 48 hours later?