independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
Create new topic 
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)| Author | Message |
Sudanese president charged with Darfur war crimes The international criminal court (ICC) today filed 10 charges of war crimes against Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, for allegedly masterminding a campaign of murder, rape and mass deportation in Darfur.
As you were. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
It's about f-ing time. http://www.myspace.com/butterscotchpimp
ONE OF THE MOST HATED MEN ON THE ORG! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
So what will they do now?
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This could be a great thing, but I have a feeling the UN will not follow this through and actually try and convict him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: So what will they do now?
Let's see....according to the standard the UN has set, NOTHING!! The International Criminal Court isn't administrated by the UN. It's a legally and functionally independent court dealing with crimes against humanity, or such like, based on a treaty joined by more than 100 countries (with another 40 having signed but not ratified the treaty). The UN Security Council can refer cases to the ICC (and the Court gives a report to the UN periodically) but it's not involved in taking them forward. As yet, the US is one of the countries not to have signed up to it, so they'll effectively be leaving the responsibility for seeing that justice is done in this case (and others like it) up to other countries. And so I guess we could say that it'll be these countries that provide the answer to the question you ask about 'what will be done now'. But if you're concerned about international justice not being served, and you don't want your country to be a shirker, why not write to your political representative and urge them to pressure the next US president to sign up?  [Edited 7/14/08 17:27pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I hope they get some relief and aid over there for the ppl dying in the camps.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: So what will they do now?
Let's see....according to the standard the UN has set, NOTHING!! First, the ICC is NOT the UN. Second, the UN is not your enemy, but the entire world, INCLUDING the US. Third, what does Bush do? HE does NOTHING. Fourth, you cry about the crimes in darfur as if you really mean it, but instead of doing something you invade another country that didn't attack you, nor threatened you and you murder, rape and torture yourself. War crimes that won't be prosecuted by the ICC because you hypocrite "christians" don't support it. [Edited 7/15/08 3:13am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
US ambivalent on charge against Sudan leader By DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago WASHINGTON - For years, the Bush administration has taken a strong stance denouncing atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region and labeling them genocide. Yet it offered only an ambivalent response when the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court filed genocide charges against Sudan's president. For all its criticism of President Omar al-Bashir, the administration is reluctant to take steps that lend legitimacy to a court whose jurisdiction it has questioned and whose treaty it refuses to sign. The administration offered some praise Monday for prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo's charge. "In our view recognition of the humanitarian disaster and the atrocities that have gone on there is a positive thing," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. McCormack emphasized, however, that the U.S. view of the ICC is well known. "We make our own determinations according to our own laws, our own regulations with respect to who should be subject to war crimes and genocide-related statutes. The ICC is a separate matter, and we are not part of the ICC," he said. Some analysts say the administration is conflicted. "I think there is probably a tension within the administration between those who would find the ICC to be an irritant and an obstacle to peace efforts in Darfur, whereas there are others who may be arguing that this might facilitate those efforts," said David Scheffer, director of Northwestern Law School's Center for International Human Rights. As U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes issues in the Clinton administration, Scheffer negotiated the 1998 Rome Statute, which established the ICC. Clinton signed it in Dec. 31, 2000. The document was never submitted to the Senate for ratification, and the Bush administration withdrew the signature. The Bush administration opposes the court because of suspicions that its jurisdiction is too broad and fears that American servicemen fighting abroad or the officials who command them might not be safe from politically motivated prosecution. In other words, the Bush administration opposes the court because they won't be prosecuted at home, where "justice" rules, but they will by the ICC. Cowards. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Even if the ICC judges issue a warrant for his arrest, it is very unlikely that the Sudanese leader will stand trail in The Hague in the immediate future.
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tremolina said: seekingtruth said: So what will they do now?
Let's see....according to the standard the UN has set, NOTHING!! First, the ICC is NOT the UN. Second, the UN is not your enemy, but the entire world, INCLUDING the US. Third, what does Bush do? HE does NOTHING. Fourth, you cry about the crimes in darfur as if you really mean it, but instead of doing something you invade another country that didn't attack you, nor threatened you and you murder, rape and torture yourself. War crimes that won't be prosecuted by the ICC because you hypocrite "christians" don't support it. [Edited 7/15/08 3:13am] Amen!!! “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” John Stuart Mill | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
deebee said: seekingtruth said: So what will they do now?
Let's see....according to the standard the UN has set, NOTHING!! The International Criminal Court isn't administrated by the UN. It's a legally and functionally independent court dealing with crimes against humanity, or such like, based on a treaty joined by more than 100 countries (with another 40 having signed but not ratified the treaty). The UN Security Council can refer cases to the ICC (and the Court gives a report to the UN periodically) but it's not involved in taking them forward. As yet, the US is one of the countries not to have signed up to it, so they'll effectively be leaving the responsibility for seeing that justice is done in this case (and others like it) up to other countries. And so I guess we could say that it'll be these countries that provide the answer to the question you ask about 'what will be done now'. But if you're concerned about international justice not being served, and you don't want your country to be a shirker, why not write to your political representative and urge them to pressure the next US president to sign up?
[Edited 7/14/08 17:27pm] I am aware that the ICC is not a direct agency of the UN. I was making the point that the "International Community" has shown itself to be impotent, and the UN is the best example of that. My question is: Is the ICC going to take the lead of the UN or might it doing something useful? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: deebee said: The International Criminal Court isn't administrated by the UN. It's a legally and functionally independent court dealing with crimes against humanity, or such like, based on a treaty joined by more than 100 countries (with another 40 having signed but not ratified the treaty). The UN Security Council can refer cases to the ICC (and the Court gives a report to the UN periodically) but it's not involved in taking them forward. As yet, the US is one of the countries not to have signed up to it, so they'll effectively be leaving the responsibility for seeing that justice is done in this case (and others like it) up to other countries. And so I guess we could say that it'll be these countries that provide the answer to the question you ask about 'what will be done now'. But if you're concerned about international justice not being served, and you don't want your country to be a shirker, why not write to your political representative and urge them to pressure the next US president to sign up?
[Edited 7/14/08 17:27pm] I am aware that the ICC is not a direct agency of the UN. I was making the point that the "International Community" has shown itself to be impotent, and the UN is the best example of that. My question is: Is the ICC going to take the lead of the UN or might it doing something useful? To answer the last question..... President Bush Discusses Genocide in Darfur, Implements Sanctions
Diplomatic Reception Room Fact Sheet: Fighting Genocide in Darfur In Focus: Africa 8:01 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. For too long, the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder, and rape of innocent civilians. My administration has called these actions by their rightful name: genocide. The world has a responsibility to help put an end to it. Last month I announced that the United States was prepared to take new steps if the government of Sudan did not allow the full deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force; if the government did not begin living up to its many commitments, that the United States would act. I made clear that the time for promises was over, and that President Bashir had to do something to end the suffering. I held off implementing these steps because the United Nations believed that President Bashir could meet his obligations to stop the killing, and would meet his obligations to stop the killing. Unfortunately, he hasn't met those obligations. President Bashir's actions over the past few weeks follow a long pattern of promising cooperation while finding new methods for obstruction. One day after I spoke, the military bombed a meeting of rebel commanders designed to discuss a possible peace deal with the government. In following weeks, he used his army and government-sponsored militias to attack rebels and civilians in South Darfur. He's taken no steps to disarm these militias in the year since the Darfur peace agreement was signed. Senior officials continue to oppose the deployment of the U.N. peacekeeping force. The result is that the dire security situation on the ground in Darfur has not changed. And so today, at my instruction, the United States has taken the steps I announced in April. First, the Department of Treasury is tightening U.S. economic sanctions on Sudan. With this new effort, the United States will more aggressively enforce existing sanctions against Sudan's government. As part of this effort, the Treasury Department will add 30 companies owned or controlled by the government of Sudan to its list of Specially Designated Nationals. We're also adding an additional company to the list, a company that has been transporting weapons to the Sudanese government and militia forces in Darfur. All these companies are now barred from the U.S. financial system. It is a crime for American companies and individuals to knowingly do business with them. Second, we're targeting sanctions against individuals responsible for violence. These sanctions will isolate these persons by cutting them off from the U.S. financial system, barring them from doing business with any American citizen or company, and calling the world's attention to their crimes. Third, I'm directing the Secretary of State to consult with the United Kingdom and other allies on a new United Nations Security Council resolution. This resolution will apply new sanctions against the government of Sudan, against individuals found to be violating human rights or obstructing the peace process. It will impose an expanded embargo on arms sales to the government of Sudan. It will prohibit the Sudanese government from conducting any offensive military flights over Darfur. It will strengthen our ability to monitor and report any violations. At the same time, we will continue to push for U.N. support, including funding for the African Union peacekeepers who remain the only force in Darfur that is protecting the people. We will continue to work for the deployment of a larger hybrid force of AU and U.N. peacekeeping troops. We will continue to support the diplomacy of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. We will continue to insist on the full implementation of the Darfur peace agreement. We will continue to promote a broadly supported and inclusive political settlement that is the only long-term solution to the crisis in Darfur. America's commitment is clear. Since this conflict began we have provided more than $1.7 billion in humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance for Darfur. We are the world's largest single donor to the people of Darfur. We're working for the day when the families of this troubled region are allowed to return safely to their homes and rebuild their lives in peace. The people of Darfur are crying out for help, and they deserve it. I urge the United Nations Security Council, the African Union, and all members of the international community to reject any efforts to obstruct implementation of the agreements that would bring peace to Darfur and Sudan. I call on President Bashir to stop his obstruction, and to allow the peacekeepers in, and to end the campaign of violence that continues to target innocent men, women and children. And I promise this to the people of Darfur: The United States will not avert our eyes from a crisis that challenges the conscience of the world. Thank you very much. How's that for a shirker.....in light of the fact that we are already doing something to help the situation, it begs the question that I was getting at to begin with..... Is the ICC nothing more than additional International buracracy? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said: deebee said: The International Criminal Court isn't administrated by the UN. It's a legally and functionally independent court dealing with crimes against humanity, or such like, based on a treaty joined by more than 100 countries (with another 40 having signed but not ratified the treaty). The UN Security Council can refer cases to the ICC (and the Court gives a report to the UN periodically) but it's not involved in taking them forward. As yet, the US is one of the countries not to have signed up to it, so they'll effectively be leaving the responsibility for seeing that justice is done in this case (and others like it) up to other countries. And so I guess we could say that it'll be these countries that provide the answer to the question you ask about 'what will be done now'. But if you're concerned about international justice not being served, and you don't want your country to be a shirker, why not write to your political representative and urge them to pressure the next US president to sign up?
[Edited 7/14/08 17:27pm] I am aware that the ICC is not a direct agency of the UN. I was making the point that the "International Community" has shown itself to be impotent, and the UN is the best example of that. My question is: Is the ICC going to take the lead of the UN or might it doing something useful? The 'International Community' (and, for that matter, the UN) is just a way of collectively referring to all the countries that make up the international scene - it's not a 'thing' in itself: it is its members! If it's impotent, that's because individual states aren't being 'potent' enough. Some states are 'bigger fish' than others, and can therefore make certain things happen more readily; and I'd say that that gives them a greater responsibility as far as situations like this are concerned. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
seekingtruth said:[quote] seekingtruth said: To answer the last question..... [Stuff about humanitarian assistance] How's that for a shirker..... [...] we are already doing something to help the situation But the point you raise isn't about 'help', it's about justice. If someone were to rape my sister, I'd be grateful if the 'powers that be' provided my family with help and assistance, but that would not in any way be a substitute for justice. I'd be justifiably pissed off that, whereas some of those that wielded power were involved in seeing that justice was done, some were leaving it to them to carry the weight. , it begs the question that I was getting at to begin with.....
Is the ICC nothing more than additional International buracracy? See my point in the post above this one. It'll be nothing more than bureaucracy if it's members let it be nothing more than that - if they don't get involved in making it more than that. If they do, it could well be a powerful force for justice on the international scene. [Edited 7/15/08 6:50am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
deebee said:[quote] seekingtruth said: But the point you raise isn't about 'help', it's about justice. If someone were to rape my sister, I'd be grateful if the 'powers that be' provided my family with help and assistance, but that would not in any way be a substitute for justice. I'd be justifiably pissed off that, whereas some of those that wielded power were involved in seeing that justice was done, some were leaving it to them to carry the weight. , it begs the question that I was getting at to begin with.....
Is the ICC nothing more than additional International buracracy? See my point in the post above this one. It'll be nothing more than bureaucracy if it's members let it be nothing more than that - if they don't get involved in making it more than that. If they do, it could well be a powerful force for justice on the international scene. [Edited 7/15/08 6:50am] I don't think we disagree on principle. I believe we just disagree on method. I see a lot of issues in trying to centralize, on a global scale, things like justice and governance. There are many cultures all over the planet, and to try and centralize justice and governance requires a deviation from traditional values. At least for many of those cultures. There has to be a standard for that justice. Where is that standard established. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Good If a man is guilty for what goes on in his mind then give me the electric chair for all my future crimes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Create new topic Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
